Judgment

GAJENDRAGADKAR, J.: (For himself and for Wanchoo, Das Gupta and Rajagopala Ayyangar JJ.) The present writ petition by which the two petitioners Khyerbari Tea Co. Ltd. and Mr. Sudhir Chandra Guha, Manager of the said Company seek to challenge the validity of the Assam Taxation (on Goods Carried by Road or on Inland Waterways) Act, 1961 (No. X of 1961) (hereinafter called the Act ), is a sequel to the decision of this Court in the case of Atiabari Tea Co. Ltd. v. State of Assam, 1961-1 SCR 809. To this petition have been impleaded three respondents, the State of Assam, the Commissioner of Taxes, the taxing authority appointed under S. 6 of the Act, and the Superintendent of Taxes, Dhubri Division. We will refer to the State of Assam as the respondent hereafter. The respondent had passed a similar Act No. XIII of 1954 which had received the assent of the Governor on April 9, 1954. The validity of the said Act was challenged by the petitioners and certain other producers of tea by filing writ petitions before the Assam High Court. The Assam High Court dismissed the writ petitions and held that the impugned Act of 1954 was valid. The said judgment was pronounced by the High Court on June 6, 1955. The petitioners whose writ petitions had been dismissed, then preferred appeals to this Court by special leave, and they also moved this Court by writ petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution. These matters were heard by this Court in the case of Atiabari Tea Co. Ltd., 1961-1 SCR 809 and by its judgment delivered on September 26, 1960, the said impugned Act was struck down as being unconstitutional, Thereafter, the Act with which we are concerned in the present proceedings was passed by the Assam Assembly. It received the assent of the President on April 6, 1961. The relevant terms of the Act are, on the whole, substantially similar to the terms of the earlier Act which was struck down. The Act has made certain additional provisions to which we will refer later. The petitioners contend that the operative provisions of the Act are invalid, and so, they pray for issue of an appropriate writ or order directing the respondent not to enforce the operative provisions against them. Petitioner No. 1 is a company and as such, it has no right to move this Court under Art. 32. This position is conceded by Mr. Mazumdar for the petitioners. Petitioner No. 2 who is the Manager of petitioner No. 1 is ,however, a citizen of India and as such he is entitled to challenge the validity of the Act inasmuch as the respondent threatens to take action in pursuance of the material provisions of the Act against the company of which he is the Manager Mr. Setalvad does not disputed the right of petitioner No. 2 to move this Court by a petition under Art. 32.

2. After the Act was passed and it came into force, the question about the scope and effect of the provisions contained in Part XIII of the Constitution which had been dealt with by this Court in the case of Atiabari Tea Co., 1961-1 SCR 809 came to be considered by a larger Bench in the case of Automobile Transport (Rajasthan) Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, 1963-1 SCR 491 and the decision of this larger Bench was pronounced on April 9, 1962 . Since the Act has been passed by the Assam Legislature with the previous sanction of the President directly as a result of the decision of this Court in the case of Atibari Tea Co., 1961-1 SCR 809 the present proceedings can be appropriately describe as an after-math of the said decision.

3. It appears that 487 persons moved the Assam High Court by writ petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution impeaching the validity of the Act. These writ petitions were considered by a Division Bench of the said High Court and they were allowed on August 1, 1963. The two learned Judges who constituted the Division Bench have delivered concurring judgments and held that the Act is invalid. On some of the points urged by the petitioners before them, the two learned Judge have diffe