1990 (2) TMI 303 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court voids Karnataka Act sections conflicting with Motor Vehicles Act, directs permit processing under 1988 Act

The Supreme Court held that Sections 14(1) and 20(3) of the Karnataka Act were void due to repugnancy with Sections 73, 74, and 80 of the Motor Vehicles ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether Section 20 of the Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1976 became void with the enforcement of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.2. Whether the provisions of Sections 14 and 20 of the Karnataka Act are repugnant to Sections 74 and 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.3. Whether the doctrine of pith and substance applies to the repugnancy between the legislations under Article 254 of the Constitution.Summary:Issue 1: Validity of Section 20 of the Karnataka Act Post Motor Vehicles Act, 1988The applications under Article 32 of the Constitution questioned the action of transport authorities in not entertaining applications for contract carriage permits under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1976 vested contract carriages and permits in the State and prohibited private operators from applying for or renewing permits. The Supreme Court had previously upheld the validity of the Karnataka Act under Entry 42 of the Concurrent List. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a Parliamentary legislation, liberalized the grant of permits, leading to the contention that Section 20 of the Karnataka Act became void due to inconsistency with the 1988 Act under Article 254 of the Constitution.Issue 2: Repugnancy between Karnataka Act and Motor Vehicles Act, 1988The petitioners argued that with the enforcement of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the provisions of Sections 14 and 20 of the Karnataka Act were repugnant to Sections 74 and 80 of the 1988 Act. The respondents contended that the Karnataka Act was under a different legislative entry and continued to hold the field. The Court examined whether Article 254(1) applied, which would make Section 20 of the Karnataka Act void due to inconsistency with the 1988 Act. It was noted that the Karnataka Act aimed to nationalize contract carriages to prevent misuse and provide better transport facilities, while the 1988 Act liberalized the grant of permits, leading to a potential conflict.Issue 3: Application of Doctrine of Pith and SubstanceThe Court considered whether the doctrine of pith and substance applied to determine legislative competence under the Concurrent List. It was held that the doctrine does not apply when the matter is covered by the Concurrent List and both laws occupy the same field. The Court emphasized that repugnancy arises when conflicting results are produced by the application of both laws. The Karnataka Act's provisions freezing the right to apply for permits and granting monopoly to the State Transport Undertaking were found to be inconsistent with the liberalized provisions of the 1988 Act, leading to operational incompatibility.Conclusion:The Supreme Court concluded that Sections 14(1) and 20(3) of the Karnataka Act were void due to repugnancy with Sections 73, 74, and 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The petitioners' applications for contract carriage permits should be entertained and disposed of according to the provisions of the 1988 Act. The Karnataka State Legislature retains the power to enact similar provisions in the future, subject to obtaining the President's assent under Article 254(2) of the Constitution.