Back
1983 Supreme(Kar) 97
Karnataka High Court
R.K.JOSHI - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA - Respondent
Decided On : 06-03-83
W.P. : 18785 of 1981
A.N.JAYARAM NAIDU, A.S.BOPANNA, A.S.BOPANNA K.SHIVASHANKAR BHAT, B.V.Jigjinni, K.CHENNABASAPPA, K.I.BHATTA, N.H.NAIK, NARASIMHAN, R.N.NARASIMHA MURTHY, SURESH S.JOSHI
Headnote:
The Karnataka Loka Shikshana Trust (Taking Over of Management) Act, 1982 (Karnataka Act 16 of 1981) was challenged on the grounds that it violated the judicial power of the court, was vague and uncertain, conferred unguided and arbitrary power on the Administrator to dispose of trust properties, and declared disputed and alienated properties as trust properties without proper adjudication. The court held that the Act did not nullify the judicial act, that the provisions for retransfer of management were not vague or uncertain, that the power to dispose of trust properties was not unguided or arbitrary, and that the declaration of disputed properties as trust properties was outside the scope of legislative action. The court declared the Explanation to Section 2(c) of the Act, which related to the disputed properties, to be invalid, but upheld the rest of the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The Loka Shikshana Trust, a public trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, published a Kannada daily newspaper called "Samyukta Karnataka" from Hubli and Bangalore. The Board of Trustees sold the right of publication of the newspaper along with machinery to a private firm. Some persons interested in the trust challenged the validity of the alienation in a suit filed in the District Court, Dharwar. The court appointed a receiver to manage the publication of the newspaper and another to collect rents from the trust's immovable properties. While the suit was pending, the State Government intervened and took over the management of the trust and its properties by promulgating an Ordinance, which was later replaced by the Act.
Finding of the Court:
1. The Act did not nullify the judicial act, as the appointment of a receiver by the court was for the purpose of preserving the property pending the litigation, and did not amount to a nullification of the judicial act. 2. The provisions for retransfer of management in Sections 3(4) and 6(2) of the Act were not vague or uncertain, as they provided for the retransfer of management to the governing body of the trust or other persons entitled thereto upon the expiry of the initial period of two years or after the extended period. 3. The power to dispose of trust properties conferred on the Administrator under Section 4(3) of the Act was not unguided or arbitrary, as it was subject to the other provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder, and to the control of the State Government. 4. The declaration in the Explanation to Section 2(c) of the Act, which deemed the disputed properties to be part of the trust, was outside the scope of legislative action, as it added to the list of trust properties properties that were in the ownership and possession of third parties and which were the subject of pending litigation.
Issues: 1. Whether the Act violated the judicial power of the court by taking over the management of the trust and its properties, which were under the management of the court through the receivers. 2. Whether the provisions for retransfer of management in Sections 3(4) and 6(2) of the Act were vague and uncertain. 3. Whether the power to dispose of trust properties conferred on the Administrator under Section 4(3) of the Act was unguided and arbitrary. 4. Whether the declaration in the Explanation to Section 2(c) of the Act, which deemed the disputed properties to be part of the trust, was outside the scope of legislative action.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The legislature cannot decide matters which the country courts are lawfully seized of. 2. A legislative judgment or despotic discretion, which is not based on pre-existing law and does not involve the authoritative determination of disputes between parties, falls outside the legislative field. 3. The declaration in the Explanation to Section 2(c) of the Act, which deemed the disputed properties to be part of the trust, was a legislative judgment or despotic discretion, as it was not based on pre-existing law and did not involve the authoritative determination of disputes between parties.
Final Decision: The court declared the Explanation to Section 2(c) of the Act, which related to the disputed properties, to be invalid, but upheld the rest of the Act. The court directed the State and the Administrator to return the disputed properties to the possession of the receiver if the suit was still pending, or to the person who was legitimately entitled thereto if the suit had been disposed of.
( 1 ) THE Loka Shikshana Trust (hereinafter referred to as 'the trust') is a public trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. It has its registered Office at Hubli. It publishes one prominent Kannada Daily news paper called "samyukta Karnataka" from Hubli and Bangalore. It also publishes some other periodicals. The Board of Trustees have sold the right of publication of the said daily along with machineries to a private firm. Some persons interested in the trust complaining mismanagement of the affairs of the trust have challenged the validity of that alienation in a suit filed in the District Court, Dharwar. They have also sought a scheme for proper administration of the trust by removing the existing trustees. In that suit, the Court appointed one receiver to manage the publication of the daily news paper and another to collect rents from the immovable properties of the trust. When the suit was thus pending with the receivers managing the properties the State Government has intervened to take over the management of the trust with those properties alienated. For that purpose, on august 31, 1981 the Governor promulgated an Ordinance called. "the Loka shikshana Trust (Taking over of Management) Ordinance, 1981 (Karnataka ordinance 16 of 1981 ). On March 10. 1982, that Ordinance was replaced by an act called "the Loka Shikshana Trust (Taking over of Management) Act. 1982" (called shortly as 'the Act' ). The petitioners in these writ petitions plead passionately for striking down the Act as unconstitutional.
( 2 ) THE petitioners in W. P. No 18785 of 1981 claim to be the persons interested in the management of the trust. The petitioner in W. P. No. 18868 of 1981 is the trust itself,. represented by Sri A. R. Diwakar who claims to be the sole trustee. The petitioner in W. P. No. 10508 of 1982 is a lessee who has taken over a vacant plot belonging to the trust under a term lease and who has built therein a multistoried building.-The petitioners in W. P. Nos. 6209 to 6217 of 1982 are the tenants occupying some of the premises belonging to the trust.
( 3 ) THE constitutional validity of the Act is the common writ petitions and they are, therefore being disposed of by this common judgment.
( 4 ) BEFORE we refer to the relevant provisions of the Act, it is necessary to say something about the pre-natal history of the legislation. The trust, the management of which has been taken over by the Government was at first established in 1935 by a leading public figure called Sri Ranganatha ramachandra Diwakar. The objects of the trust, among others was to educate the public by dissemination of useful news and highlight the public grievances on matters of public interests. It was to establish reading rooms and libraries, printing press and publication house for books, magazines and news papers in Kannada and other languages. It was also to help directly or indirectly societies and institutions which have all or any of the aforesaid objects in view. The main activity of the trust however, was confined to the publication of "samyukta Karnataka a daily news paper from Hubli and in the recent pas simultaneously from bangalore also. It is said that the trust in spite of its laudable objects, has been incurring loss with bank balance slowly dwindling and other liabilities steadily increasing. Some say it was due to the mismanagement and misappropriation of funds by the trustees, but the trustees assert that in the very nature of the activities of the trust and in high costs involved, the loss is inevitable and can only be minimised but' not altogether avoided. Be that as it may, we are not concerned with the correctness of the rival reasons. That is a matter which falls for adjudication by the District Court, Dharwar in the pending scheme suit. At this stage, we can only take note! of the fact alleged and indeed not denied by most of the Advocates before us that all was not well in the administration of the trus
