VIJAY KUMAR SHARMA & ORS. ETC. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1990] 1 S.C.R. 614 · Decided: 27-02-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 12 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
VIJA Y KUMAR SHARMA & ORS. ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. ETC. 
FEBRUARY27, 1990 
[RANGANATH MISRA, P.B. SAWANT, AND 
K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.] 
Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1976: ss. 14, & 
20-Whether repugnant toss. 74 & 80, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-State 
Act whether impliedly repealed by Parliamentary Act-State Act 
whether hit by Article 254 of the Constitution. 
Constitution of India, Article 254: Repugnancy between the 
Parliamentary Act and the State Act in respect of matters in the Concur-
rent List, 
Seventh Schedule-When arises-Karnataka Contract 
Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1976-Whether repugnant to the Motor 
D Vehicles Act, 1988. 
E 
Statutory interpretation-Doctrine of pith and substance or .domi-
nant purpose-Scope of-Whether applicable to find repugnancy under 
Article 254 of the Constitution between Parllamentary and State laws in 
respect of matters in List III. Seventh Schedule to _the Constitution.-
The Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1976 enac-
ted by the State Legislature by taking aid of Entry 42 List III of the 
Seventh Schedule and Articles 31 and 39 (b) and (c) of the Constitution 
was reserved for consideration and received the assent of the President 
of March 11, 1976. Section 4 of that Act provided for vesting of contract 
P 
carriages along with the respective permits and/or certificates of regist-
ration issued under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 in the State absolutely 
free from encumbrances. Sub-section (1) of s. 14 prohibited applica-
tions for fresh permits or renewal of existing permits on or from the 
date of vesting. Section 14(2) provided for abatement of all applications, 
appeals or revisions pending before the appropriate authority as on the 
G notified date. Sub-section (1) of s. 20 provided for calcellation 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 or 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 
· Ff persons, while sub-section (3) restrained the authority concerned from 
614 
·-
-
-
V.K. SHARMA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 
615 
entertaining applications from persons other than the Corporation. 
Section 73 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (enacted to replace the 
1939 Act) lays down the mode of application for a contract carriage 
permit. Section 74(1) empowers the Regional Transport Authority to 
grant such permits. Sub-section (2) enumerates conditions that could be 
attached to such permit. Sub-section (3) empowers the State Govern-
ment when directed by the Central Government to limit the number of 
contract carriages on the city routes. Under s. 80(1) such application 
could be made at any time. Sub-section (2) posits that a Regional Trans-
port Authority shall not ordinarily refuse to grant such application. 
Section 217(1) repealed all the laws which were inconsistent with the 
provisions of the Act. 
The petitioners, a group of contract carriage operators who were 
denied permits that they had applied for under ss. 73, 74 and 80 of the 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in view of the provisions ofss. 14 and 20 of the 
Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1976, filed writ peti-
tions under Article 32 <if the Constitution questioning the action of the 
R. T.A. It was contended that the provisions of ss. 14 and 20 of the 
Karnataka Act were in direct conflict with the provisions of ss. 74 and 
80(2) of.the M. V. Act, 1988 in as much as while the Regional Transport 
Authority was enjoined by the said provisions of the 1988 Act ordinarily · 
not to refuse to grant an application for permit of any kind, the said 
provisions of the Karnataka Act prohibited any person from applying 
for, and any officer or authority from entertaining or granting applica-
tion for running any contract carriage in the State; that since the M. V. 
Act, 1988 was a later legislation operating in the same area, it should be 
deemed to have impliedly repealed the provisions ofss. 14 and 20 of the 
Karnataka Act even if the latter Act had received the assent of the 
President, in view of the proviso to sub-clause (2) of Article 254 of the 
Constitution; that when there is a repugnancy under Article 2~'! of the 
Constitution, the doctrine of pith and substance does not apply, and 
even if some of the prov

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.