Spread the love

Post Views: 995

Citation	AIR 1990 SC 2072
Date of Judgment	27/02/1990
Court	Supreme Court of India
Appellant	Vijay Kumar Sharma and Others
Respondent	State of Karnataka and Others
Bench	Mishra Rangnath, Misra Rangnath, Sawant, P.B., Ramaswamy, K.
Referred	Art 32& 31 and 39(b)list 3 entry 42, Art 254 S. 14(1) and 14 (2), S. 73,74,80
Case Type/ Issue	Writ Petition (Civil)

FACTS OF CASE

The case of Vijay Kumar Sharma Vs State of Karnataka on 27 February, 1990 dealt with the issue of repugnancy between the Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1976 and the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 in respect of matters in the Concurrent List, Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India.

The Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1976 was enacted by the State Legislature by taking aid of Entry 42 List 3 of the Seventh Schedule and Article 31 and 39 (b) and of the Constitution. It was reserved for consideration and received the assent of the President on March 11, 1976.

Section 4 of that Act provided for vesting of contract carriages along with the respective permits or certificate of registration issued under the Motor Vehicle Act,1939 in the Sate absolutely free from encumbrances. Sub- section (1) of section14 prohibition applications for fresh permits or renewal of existing permits on or from the date of vesting. Section 14 (2) Provided for abatement of all application, appeals, or revision pending before the appropriate authority as on the notification date.

Sub- section of Section 20 provided for cancellation of, notwithstanding anything in the 1939 Act, all contract carriage permits granted or renewed in respect of any vehicle other than a vehicle acquired under the Act of belonging to the State Road Transport Corporation. Sub- section (2) entitled the Corporation to the grant or renewal of contract carriage permits to the exclusion of all other persons, while sub-section (3) restrained the authority concerned from entertaining applications from persons other than the Corporation.

ISSUE

The issue in the case of Vijay Kumar Sharma vs State of Karnataka on February 1990 was whether the Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1976 was repugnant to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1976 was enacted by the State Legislature by taking aid of Entry 42 List 3 of the Seventh Schedule and Article 31 &39 (b) and the Constitution. The Act provided for vesting of contract carriage along with respective permits and provided for vesting of contract carriages along with the respective permits and certificates of registration issued completely unencumbered in the state under the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939..The case dealt with whether this Act was in conflict with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988.

ARGUMENTS

The case of Vijay Kumar Sharma vs State of Karnataka on 27 February1990 in this case arguments presented by both parties revolved around this this issue:

The petitioners, Vijay Kumar Sharma & Others, argued that the Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1976 was repugnant to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. They contended that the State Act was in conflict with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and therefore should be struck down.

On, other hand, the respondents, State of Karnataka & Others argued that the Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act,1976 was not repugnant to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. They contended that the State Act was enacted by taking aid of Entry 42 List 3 of the Seventh Schedule and Article 31 and 39 (b) and of the Constitution and was therefore valid.

JUDGEMENT

The Judgement in the case of Vijay Kumar Sharma vs State of Karnataka & State of Karnataka on 27 february1990 was delivered by the Supreme Court of India. The bench consisted of Misra Rangnath, Sawant, P.B., Ramaswamy, K. The case dealt with the issue of whether the Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1976 was repugnant to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Supreme Court ultimately held that the Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1976 was not repugnant to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and upheld its validity. The court found that the State Act was enacted by taking aid of Entry 42 List 3 of the Seventh Schedule and Articles 31 and 39 (b) and the constitution and was therefore valid.

The court also discussed the doctrine of pith and substance or dominant purpose and its applicability in finding repugnancy under Article 254 of the constitution between Parliamentary and States laws in respect of matters in List3, Seventh Schedule to the constitution.

References