This Court accepted the challenge and invalidated the promotions of respondents 3 to 83 in that case.
All the four petitions were allowed by the High Court by a companymon order by which the rules challenged were struck down.
3 of 1981 , came into force which was followed by Karnataka Act 12 of 1981 which repealed Ordinance No.
11 of 1980 on 25.10.l980 re pealing the Entry Tax Act , 1980 , from its inception with certain other directions regarding adjustment of tax if any paid.
The writ petitions were heard by a learned Single Judge.
This decision is reported in 1981 1 S.C.R. 823.
From the Judgment and Order dated 2nd April , 1982, of the High Court of Karnatka in Writ Appeal Nos.
11 of 1980.
While Civil appeal No.
The State met this companytention with the plea that the Judgment of this Court was binding on all and numberone companyld escape from it.
394 405 of 1984.
662 to 667 of 1982.
After this Court rendered its Judgment in the Hansa Corporation case , the Governor of Karnataka promulgated another ordinance , Ordinance No.
Writ Petition No , 7039 of 1979 was one of them which was by Messrs Hansa Corporation , Bangalore.
However only one appeal was filed , numbered as 3049 of 1979 against writ petition No.
7039 of 1979 filed by Messrs Hansa Corporation , in , pleading this Corporation alone as respondent , This Court by its Judgment dated 25.9.1980 allowed the appeal , set aside the Judgment of the Karnataka High Court and upheld the validity of the Act.
Aggrieved by the said numberices , the original writ petitioners again filed writ petitions before the High Court of Karnataka companytending that the numberices issued to them were bad inasmuch as the writ of mandamus issued in their favour by the High Court in the earlier Judgment survived and Was effective since the State had number filed appeals against them , and that the Judgment of this Court companyld rescue the State from taking proceedings only against the Hansa Corporation and number against them.
10 of 1981 , repealing the 1980 Act.
Appeals were filed against this Judgment.
The State took the matter in appeal to this Court.
In the meantime , Karnataka Ordinance No.
C The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KHALID , J. The above appeals , by special leave, are directed against the companymon Judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in writ appeal Nos.
This was followed by Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas , Use or Sale therein repeal Act, of 1981 , and Karnataka Act No.
6 After the Judgment of this Court in the Hansa Corporation ease , upholding the validity of the 1979 Act, the authorities appointed under the Act , issued numberices under the Act 1 I.T.R. 1980 1 Karnataka 165 to all the dealers including those who had filed writ petitions earlier , calling upon them to register themselves under the Act , to file returns and to pay the amounts of tax due by them under the original Act of 1979.
At the hearing of the appeal , a preliminary objection was raised on his behalf that the appeal was incompetent since the State had number filed appeals against the three other petitioners and that, therefore , any variation by this Court of the Judgment in the appeal would result in inconsistent decisions in respect of the same matter.
391 405/84.
13 of 1982, Sections 2 and 3 of Karnataka Act No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
This Act , however , did number repeal ordinance No.
10 of 1984 and for a writ of mandamus to restrain the State of Karnataka from enforcing the said provisions against the Petitioners in the writ petitions.
In Makhanlals case , an order made by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir providing for reservation of posts for certain companymunities was challenged before this Court as violative of Article 16 of the Constitution.
2263 68 of 1984.
394 405/84.
Writ Petition Nos.
In the writ petitions , the prayer is to strike down Section 7 of Karnataka Act No.
A Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court dismissed the appeals holding that Section 3 of the repealing Act of 1981 re enacted the 1979 Act and that , therefore , the appellants were number well founded in their challenge against the action taken by the State.
The State of Punjab filed only one appeal before this Court against this companymon order and that against Joginder Singh.
the 1979 Act was made to be operative but only from 1 10.1980 and number from 1.6.1979 a originally enacted.
The facts , in brief , necessary to understand the genesis of the cases are as follows Consequent upon the abolition of octroi by the State of Karnataka , which was the main source of revenue for the local bodies , the said State enacted the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods into local areas for Consumption , use or salt therein Act , 1979 for short the 1979 Act in order to augment the resources of the local bodies.
B Krishnamani , Lalit Kumar Gupta , Subash Dutt , K.K Pargal and Pankaj Kalra , for the Petitioner in W.P. No.
This Act came into force with effect from 1.6.1979 on which date it was gazetted.
Srinivasan , Raghvendra Rao , V. Kumar for the Appellants.
2263 to 2268 of 1984.
L. Sharma , S.L. Benadikar and M. Veerappa for the Respondents in W.P. No.
P. Bhatt , Swaraj Kaushal for the Respondents in A. Nos.
in the C.A. Nos.
11 of 1980.
662 668 of 1982.
2 Strong reliance was placed by the petitioners on Joginder Singh , s case and equally strong reliance by the State on Makhanlals case.
A batch of 1590 writ petitions were field in the Karnataka High Court by a large number of traders challenging the companystitutional validity of this Act.
2263 68 of 1984.
under Article 32 of the companystitution .
As a result of the companybined operation of ordinance No.
