The main legal point established in the judgment is that the legislature cannot overrule a judicial decision that has attained finality by a legislative measure.

JUDGMENT :

ALOK ARADHE, J.

1. In this batch of appeals, since, common questions of law and fact arise for consideration, they were heard analogously and are being decided by this common judgment. The issue in W.A. No. 3234/2010, W.A. No. 4805/2010 and W.A. No. 3575/2010, is whether a statute which was earlier declared unconstitutional can be given retroactive operation through fresh validating legislation enacted by the legislature. In W.A. No. 4152/2009, W.A. No. 4150/2009 and W.A. No. 4151/2009, the issue which arises for consideration is whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to the State Government to refund the amount despite upholding the validity of Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation (Second Amendment) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act 2007’ for short). For the facility of reference, facts from W.P. No. 10489/2007 are being referred to.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

2. The petitioner in W.P. No. 10489/2007 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the petitioner’ for short) is a transport operator and is operating various vehicles by obtaining permits under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short). The petitioner entered into lease agreement with Tata Infotech Ltd. on 01.04.1999 for a period of three years. Under the aforesaid agreement, the consideration in respect of each vehicle per calendar month was Rs. 30,000/- which was payable by the company to the petitioner. The petitioner under the agreement was under an obligation to transfer the ownership of the vehicle in favour of Tata Infotech Ltd. The vehicles were to be used for the purpose of providing transportation facilities to the employees of the company to travel from the residence to the place of work and back to their residence without collecting any amount from them. The Regional Transport Officer issued a show cause notice dated 23.09.1988 to the petitioner who was informed that as per pre-audit enquiry report, the tax paid on the vehicles treating the vehicles as private service vehicles is not proper and it should be treated as contract carriages and the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why the difference of tax should not be collected. The petitioner responded to the aforesaid notice by submitting a reply, in which inter-alia it was pointed out that the vehicle has been properly assessed as private vehicle and the question of treating the same as contract carriage does not arise. It was also stated that there was no prohibition on the issue of contract carriage permits in the State of Karnataka.

3. The Regional Transport Officer, however, in respect of 48 vehicles and 10 vehicles passed an order on 28.10.1998 and 04.11.1998 respectively, by which the petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 94,36,540/- and Rs. 21,51,400/- being the amount of difference of tax and penalty. The petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 15 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1957’ for short). The appellate authority by an order dated 02.03.1999 dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition viz. W.P. No. 7364/1999, which was dismissed by learned Single Judge of this court by order dated 17.03.1999. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a writ appeal viz. W.A. No. 2327/1999, which was admitted on 01.06.2009 and the prayer for interim relief was made and an interlocutory order was passed on 24.08.1999, which reads as under:

“No ground for grant of interim stay of recovery of tax is made out.

I.A. No. 1 is dismissed. However, keeping in view, the amount of tax involved and the fact that this has to be paid every quarter thereby creating a continuing liability, we order that the appeals be listed in the hearing list for the week commencing 27.09.1999. In case the appellants succeed in the appeal, the respondent sh