Holding

A Supreme Court judgment under Article 141 is binding on all courts, authorities and persons, even if they were not parties to the appeal, rendering the earlier mandamus ineffective for all petitioners.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined whether its earlier judgment in Hansa Corporation’s case, which upheld the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979, was binding on a large group of traders who had obtained mandamus from the Karnataka High Court but whose writs were not appealed against. The petitioners argued that, because the State had appealed only one of the 1,590 writs, the Supreme Court’s decision should not affect the mandamus issued to the others. Relying on Article 141 of the Constitution and the precedents set in State of Punjab v. Joginder Singh and Makhanlal Waza v. J&K State, the Court held that a Supreme Court judgment is binding on all courts, authorities and persons, irrespective of party status. Consequently, the mandamus issued earlier became ineffective for all petitioners. The Court dismissed the appeals and the writ petitions with costs.

Issues considered

The binding effect of a Supreme Court judgment on parties who were not before the Court when the judgment was delivered.
Whether the absence of an appeal against certain writ petitioners defeats the applicability of the Supreme Court’s decision.
The relevance of the principles laid down in Joginder Singh and Makhanlal Waza cases to the present facts.
The fate of a mandamus issued by a High Court after the Supreme Court overturns the underlying decision.

Legislation cited

Subjects

Article 141binding precedentmandamusKarnataka Entry Tax Actwrit of mandamusSupreme Court judgment binding on non-partiesArticle 32constitutional validity

Judgment

659
A

B
M/S SHENOY AND CO. REPRESENTED BY ITS
PARTNER BELE SRINIVASA RAO STREET,
BBNGALORE AND OTHERS

v.

THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE II
c
BANGALORE AND OTHERS

10th April, 1985

[D.A. DESAI, V. BALAKRISHNA ERADi AND V. KHALID, JJ.] D
Declarative Judgment, effect, and binding nature of-Constitutiou of India,
1950, Article 141 'scope. •

Writ ofmandanJus, meaning of-Several writ petitions filed by traders
challengb1g the Constitutional validity of an Act was allowed by the High Court
by a common jaudgrneni but the said judgment wa3 set aside by the Supreme Court
in the only one State appeal preferr~d-Whether the ;aid judgment of the E
Suprerne Court will not be binding upon the writ petitioners on the plea of
non·filing of appeals by the State against theit writ petitions.

That ConstitutionaJ validity of the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods
into Local Areas for consumption, use or sale therein Act, 1979, which came
into force with effect· from 1.6.1979 was challenged in the Karnataka High
Court by a large number of traders though a batch of 1590 writ petitions F
including writ petition No. 7039/79 by M/s. Hansa Corporation Bangalore. A
Division Bench of the ~urt, by a common judgment dated 24.8.79 reported
in ILR 1980 (1) Karnataka 165 allowed all the writ petitions and issued writs
of mandamus against the State Government forbearing it from taking any
proceedings uoder the Act. The State took the matter in appeal in this Court.
However, only one appeal was filed,numbered as 3049 of 1979 against writ Peti.
tion No. 170 39 of 1979 filed by M/s Hansa Corporation, impleading this Corpo~
ranon alone as respondent. ThisCourt by its judgment dat..:d 25.9.80 which is
reported in 1981_ (l) SCR 823,allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the
Karnataka High_..Court and upheld the validity of the Act.

During the pendency of the civil appeal No. 3049 of 1979 Governor of
Karnataka enacted the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods into a Local Area H
660 SUPREME COURTS REPORTS [i98SJ 3 s.c.R.
A for Consumption, use or sale therein (Act 21), Act 1980 with retrospective effect
from 8.6.80 removing the infirmities in the 1979 Act. After the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the Hansa Corporation's case the Governor of Karnataka
promulgated another ordinance, Ordinance No. 11 of 1980 on 25.10.1980
repealing the Entry Tax Act, 1980 from its inception with certain other direc-
tions regarding adjustment of tax if any paid. This was followed by Karnataka
Tax on Entry of Goods into Loca! Areas, Use or Sale therein Act, of 1981. and
B K:irnataka. Act No. 10 of 1931, repealing the 1980 Act. however, did not
repeal ordinance No. 11of1980. In the meantime, Karnataka Ordinance No. 3
of 1981 came into force which was followed by Karnataka Act 12 of 19S I which
repealed Ordance No. 11 of 1980. As a r'esult of the combined operation of
ordinance No. 3of1981 and Act No 12of1981, the 1979 Act was made to be
operative but only from I.10.80 and not from 1.6.79 as originally enacted.

c After the judgment of the Hansa Corporation•s case upholding the valdity
of the 1979 Act, the authorities appointed under the Act, issued flotices under
~.
the Act to all th~ dealers including those who had filed writ petition earlier,
calling upon them to register themselves under the Act, to file return.,, and to
pay the amounts of tax due by them under the original Act of 1979. Aggrieved
by the said notices, the original writ petitioners again filed writ pet'itions before
the High Court of Karnataka contending that the notices issued to them were
D bad in as much as the writ of mandamus issued in their favour by the High
Court in the earlier judgment survived and was effective since no state appeals
were performed against them and that th~ judgment of the supreme Court could
rescue the State from taking proceedings only against the Aansa Corporation
and not aaainst them. The State met this contention with the plea that the
judgment of the Supreme Court wa~ binding on all and no one could escape
from it. The writ p:titions were dismissed by a single judge holding among
E other things, that section 3 of the Act No. IO Jf 1991 revived the 1979 Act and
that action taken against th~ petitioners in the wdt petition~ was, therefore,
valid. Appeals were filed against the judgment and a Division Bench of the
Karnataka Hia:h Court dismissed the appe:ils holding that section 3 of the re-
pealing Act of 1931 re.enacted the 1979 Act anj that, therefore, the appeals
were not well founded i11 their challenge again'>t the action taken by the State.
Hence the appeals by special leave and also writ petitions under Article 32 of
F
the Constitution.

Dismissing the appeals and the writ petititions, the Court

HELD: I.I The judgment of the Supreme Court in Hansa CorporaJions'
case reported in [19811 I SCR 821 is binding on all concerned whether they
were parties to the judgment or not. To contend that the conclusion therein
G applies only to the partly before the Supreme Court is to destroy the efficacy
and integrity of the judgment and to rnake the mandate of' Article 141 illusory.
By settiog aside the common judgment of the High Court, the mandamus
issued by the High Court is rendered ineffective not only in one case but in all
cases:(67'; 673-H)

1.2 In the instant case, though a large number of writ petitions were filed
H challenging the Act, all those writ petitions were grouped together, heard
Sl!kNOY AND CO. v. C.T. OFFiCER (Kha/id J.) t\6i
together and were disposed of by the High Court by a common judgment. No
petitioner advanced any contention peculiar or individual td his petition, not
common to others. To be pr.:..:.ise, the dispute in the cause or controversy bet,
ween the State and each petitioner had no personal or individual element in it
or anything personal or peculiar to each petitioner. The challenge to the Cons-
titutional validity of 1979 Act proceeded on identical grounds common to all
petitioners. This challenge was accepted by the High Court by a common
B
judgment that was the subject matter of appeal before Supreme Court in Hansa
Corporations' case. When the Supreme Court repealed the challenge and held
the Act constitutionally-valid it in terms disposed of not the appeal in Hansa
Corporation's case alone, but all petitioners in which "the High Court issued
nrindamus on the non.existent ground that the 1979 Act was constitutionally
invalid. Therefore, to contend that the Jaw laid down by Suprerrie Court in that
judgment would bind only the Hansa Corporation and not the other petitioners
aga inst whom the State of Karnataka had not filed any appeal, is to ignore
c
the binding nature of a judgment of Supreme Court under Article 141 of the
Constitution. [673B-C)

1.3 A mere reading of Article 141 brings into sharp focus its expanse and
its all pervasive nature. In cases like this, where numerous petitions are
disposed of by a commonjjudgment and only one appeal is filed, the parties to
the common judgment could very well have and should have intervened and D
could have requested the court to hear them also. They cannot be heard to
say that the decision was taken by the Supreme Court behind their back or
profess ignorance of the f~ct that an appeal had been filed by the State against
the commonjudgment.i[673B-CJ

2. There· is no inconsistency in the finding of the S_upreme Court in
.foginder's case and Makhan!al Waza's case the ratio 1s the same and the appel- E
lants cannot take advantage of certain decisions made by this Court in the
earlier case. Both the decisions in Joginder's and Makhanlal Waza's case lay·
down identical principles and there is nothing to distinguish between the two.
In the earlier case, the Supreme Court, on its facts, overruled the preliminary
objection that absence of appeals against the three petitioners let out, would not
render the appeal before the Supreme Court incompetent, holdihg thereby that
the effect of decision in that appeal would be binding on the appellant therein.
Jn the latter case, the Supreme Court in unmistakable ferms laid down that the
Jaw laid down in the earlier case, namely, Triloknath' s case, applied even
to those who were not parties to the case. These two decisions were given by two
Constitution Benches of the Supreme Court, the fact that Joginder Singh's case
was not noted by the Bench that decided Makhanlal Waza's case does not create
any difficulty. The two dc:cisions, on the principles laid down by them, speak G
the same voice, that is the law laid down by the Supreme Court is binding on all,
notwitho;tanding the f:i.ct th1t it h again--;t the State or a private party and that
it is binding on even those who w_:re not parties before the Court,

State of Punjab •. Joginder Singh. (1963] 2 Suppl. SCR 169; Makhanlal
Waza v. J & K State. [.1971] 3 SCR 832 discussed and followed. ,1 H
662 SUPREME COURTS REPORTS (!9sSJ 3 s.c.k.
A OBSERVATION:
In the fitness of things, it would be desirable that the St Ltc Government
also took out publication in such cases to alert parties bound by tlle judgment,
of the fact that an appeal had been preferred before Supreme Court by them.
Here the State Government cannot be find fault with for having filed only one
appeal. It is, of course, an economising procedure. [673C~D]
B
3 1 A writ or an order in the nature of mandamus has always been
understood to mean a command issuing from the Court, competent to do the
same, to a Public servant amongst others, to perform which leads to the initia-
tion of action.

3,2 In this case, the petitioners·appellants assert that the mandamus in
c their case was issued by the High Court commanding the au thOrity to desist
or forbear from enforcing the provisions of an Act which was not validity enac-
ted. In other words, a writ of mandamus was predicated upon the view that
1
the High Court took that the 1979 Act was constitutionally inv~lid. Conse-
quently the Court directed the authorities· under the said Act to f rbear from
enforcing the provisions of the Act qua the petitioners. The A~t was subse- ·-
quently declared constitutionally valid by the Supreme Court. The Act, there~
fore, was under an eclipse, for a short duration ; but with the declaration of the
D
Jaw by the Supreme Court, the temporary shadow cast on it by the mandamus
disappeared and the Act revived with its full the constitutional invalidity held
by the High Court having been removed by the judgment of tbe Supreme
Court. If the law so declared invalid is held constitutional1y valid, effective and
binding by the Supre1ne Court, the mandamus forbearing the authorities from
enforcing its pro;.·isions would become ineffective and the authodties cannot be
complied to perform a negative duty. The declaration of the laY( is binding on
E everyone. And therefore, the ·mandamus would not survive in f~vour of those
partieS against whom appeal<;. were not filed. [774B·B]

3.3 Further, assuming that the mandamus in favour of the itppellants sur~
vived not withstanding the judgment of this Court, the norm~l procedure to
enforce the mandamus is to move the court in contemj)t when the parties
against whom mandamus is issued disresp~ct it hnd if contempt petitions arc
F filed and notices are issued to the State, the States' obvious a11swer will be a
reference to Article 141 and taking protection thereunder. 'No Court can
punish a party for contempt under these circumstances, because the mandamus
issued by the Higb. Court becomes ineffective an'd unenforceable when the basis
on which.it \\as issued falls, by the declaration by the Supreme Court of the
validity of 1919 Act. [674E; G-H]
G
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISCIDTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 2263 to
2268 of 1984.
•
From the Judgment and _Order dated 2nd April, 1982, of the
High Couri of Karnatka in Writ Appeal Nos. 662 to 667 of
H 1982.
SHBNOY AND Co. v. C.T. OFFiCBR {Kha/id, J.) 663
Writ Petition Nos. 394-405 of 1984. (nnder Article 32 of the A
constitution).
K. Srinivasan, Raghvendra Rao, V. Kumar for the Appellants.
in the C.A. Nos. 2263-68 of 1984.

R.P. Bhatt, Swaraj Kaushal for the Respondents in C.A. Nos.
2263-68 of 1984. B

Krishnamani, La/it Kumar Gupta, Subash Dutt, K.K. Parga/ and·
Pnakaj Ka Ira, for the Petitioner in W. P. No. 394-405/84.

K.L. Sharma, S.L. Benadikar and M. Veerappa for the
Respondents in W.P. No. 394-405/84. c
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

KHALID, J. The above appeals, by special leave, are direc-
ted against the common Judgment rendered by a Division Bench
of the Karnataka High Court in writ appeal Nos. 662-668 of D
1982. In the writ petitions, the prayer is to strike down Section
7 ofKarnatka Act No. 13of1982, Sections 2 and 3 .of Karnataka
Act 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. This Judgment will dispose of E
.the appeals and the writ petitions.

2. 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
F
Karnataka, which was the main source· of revenue for the local
· bodies, the said State enacted the· Karuataka Tax on Entry of
Goods into local areas for Consumption, use or salt therein Act,
1979 (for short the 1979 Act) in order to augmentthe resources
of the local. bodies. This Act came into force with effect from
1.6.1979 on which date it was gazetted. G
3.· A batch of 1590 writ petitions were field in the
Karnataka High Court by a large number of traders challenging
the constitutional validity of this Act. Writ Petition No, 7039 of
1979 was one of them which was by Messrs Hansa Corporation,
Bangalore. These writ petitions, on reference by a learned H
Single Judge, were heard by a Division Bench, which by a common
664 SUPREME COURTS REPORTS [198$[ 3 s.c.R..

A Judgment dated 24.8.1979(') struck down the Act, allowed the
the writ petiticn and issued writs of mandamus against the State
Government forbearing it from taking any proceeJ:n5s under the
Act. The State took the matter in appeal to this Court. However,
only one appeal was filed, numbered as 3049 of 1979 against
writ petition No. 7039 of 1979 filed by Messrs Hansa Corporation,
B irnpleading this Corporation alone as respondent, This Court
by it1 Judgment dated 25.9.1980 allowed the appeal, set aside the
Judgment of the Karnataka High Court and upheld the validity of
the Act. This decision is reported in 1981 (I) S.C.R. 823. .
4. While Civil appeal No. 3049 of 1979 was pending before
c this Court, the Governor of Karnatab promulgated the Karnataka
Tax on Entry of Goods into a Local Area for Consumption, use
or Sale therein Ordinance of 1980 (Karnataka Ordinance No. 5 of
1980) on 8.6.1980 providing for levy of entry tax on registered
dealers, removing the infirmities in the 1979 Act, that were poin-
ted out by the High Court in its Judgment while striking down
D the Act. This ordinance was replaced by Act No. 21 of 1980
giving it retrospective effect from 8.6.1980, the date of the
ordinance.
5. After this Court rendered its Judgment in the Hansa
Corporation case, the Governor of Karnataka promulgated
another ordinance, Ordinance No. 11 of 1980 on 25.10.1980 re-
E
pealing the Entry Tax Act, 1980, from its inception with certain
other directions regarding adjustment of tax if any paid. 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. 10 of 1981, repealing the 1980 Act. This Act, however,
F did not repeal ordinance No. 11 of 1980. In the meantime,
Karnataka Ordinance No. 3 of 1981, came into force which was
followed by Karnataka Act 12 of 1981 which repealed Ordinance
No. 11 of !980. As a result of the combined operation of ordi-
nance No. 3 of 1981 and Act No. 12 of 1981. the 1979 Act was
made to be operative but only frorn 1.10.1980 and not from 1.6.1979
G originally enacted.
6. After the Judgment of this Court in the Hansa Corpo-
ration ease, upholding the validity of the 1979 Act, the authorities
appointed under the Act, issued notices under the Act

H (1)-I.T.R. 1980 (!) Karnataka 165
SHENOY AND CO v. C.T. OFF19ER (Kha/id, J.) 665
to all the dealers including those who had filed writ peti- A'
tions 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. Aggrieved by the said
notices, the original writ petitioners again filed writ petitions
before the High Court of Karnataka contending that the notices
issued to them were bad inasmuch as the writ of mandamus B
issued in their favour by the High Court in the earlier Judgment
survived and was effective since the State had not filed appeals ·
against them, and that the Judgment of this Court could rescue
the State from taking proceedings only against the Hansa Cor-
por-ation and not against them. The State met this contentio·n
with the plea that the Judgment of this Co.urt was binding on c
all and no one could escape from it. The writ petitions were
heard by a learned Single Judge. He dismissed them holding,
among other things, that Section 3 of the Act No. 10 of 1981
revived the 1979 Act .and that action taken against the petitioners ·
in the writ petitions, was therefore, valid.
D
7. Appeals were filed againsfthis Judgment. A Division Bench
of the Karn 1taka High Court dismissed the appeals holdingJhat
Section 3 of the repealing Act of 1981 re-enacted the 1979 Act
and that, therefore, the appt;llants were not well founded in their
challenge against the action taken by the State. ·
E
8. The learned Single Judge and the Division Bench had
to consider the effect of the two decisions of this Court for
deciding the questions argued before them. The decisions are
the State of Punjab v. Joginder Sinnh(1 ) and Makhanla/
Waza v. J & K State.(') Strong reliance was placed by
the petitioners on Juginder Singh,s case and equally strong F
reliance by the State on Makhan/a/'s case. The learned
Single Judge and the Division Bench understood the principle
enunciated in the two decisions differetly. They were under the
impression that the action taken by the State would have been
invalid, but for the saving provision contained in the repealing
G
Act, notwithstanding the Judgment in Hansa Corporaiion' case.

9. What falls for decision in these appeals is the resolution
of the conflict between the approach made by the learned Single

(l) [1963] 2 Suppl. S.C.R. 169.
ff
12) [1971J J s.c.R. 832.
666 SUPREME.COURTS RBPORLS [1985) 3 s.c.R.
A
Judge and the Division Bench to the two cases referred to above and
to examine the ratio of the two decisions, since, in our opinion, these
appeals can be disposed of on the short ground whether the Hansa
Corporation Judgment validated the action taken by tl1e State
We will now briefly set out the facts of the two cases :
B
In Juginder Singh's case, four employees who were absor-
bed in Government service filed four separate writ petitions before
the High Court of Punjab challenging certain executive powers
and rules as being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
c All the four petitions were allowed by the High Cdurt by a
common order by which the rules challenged were struck down.
The State of Punjab filed ·only one appeal before this Court
aginst th's common order and that against Joginder Singh. At
the hearing of the appeal, a preliminary objection was taised on
his behalf that the appeal was incompetent since the Sta:e had
not fi_led appeals against the three other petitioners and that,
I)
therefore, any variation by this Court of the Judgmeijt in the
appeal would result in inconsistent decisions in respect of the same
matter.

In Makhan/a/'s case, an order made by the Government of
E Jammu and Kashmir providing for reservation of postS for cer.
tain communities was challenged before this Court as violative
of Article 16 of the Constitution. This Court accepted the cha!·
lcnge and invalidated the promotions of respondents 3 to 83 in
that case. By its Judgment. this Court directed the State Govern·
ment to devise a scheme consistent with the constituti!Jnal gua-
F rantee for reservation of appointment to posts and to pass
appropriate orders. The State Government instead of complying
with the directions given by this Court, attempted to _circumvent
the same by continuing those whose promotions were invalidated,
giving the posts a different nn1ne. 1,he same petitioners again
moved this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution questioning
the action of the State Government. The State Government
G
justified its action contending that there were many perso~s who
were not parties to the earlier writ petitions and who had been
promoted prior to and/or subsequent to this Court's decision and
that they were not bound by the earlier Judgment. This conten·
tion was repelled by this Court. It was held that the law declared
ff by this Court was bindin11 on the respondent State ancl il$
SHENOY AND CO. v, C.T.OFF!CER (Kha/id, J.) 667 .

officers irrespective of the fact whether those who would be
A
affected by its pronouncement were parties to the Judgment
or not.

IO. Now we will see how the learned Single Judge,and the
Division Bench understood the two Judgments of this Court.

·r-- The learned Single Judge extracted the relevant portions B
from Joginder Singh's case and observed that the said Judgment,
according to him, settled two firm propositions which in his words
are as follows :

"(iJ An appeal filed against only one person, though his
~--- writ petition was disposed of by common order c
along with other cases flied by others notwithstand-
ing the fact that appeals are not filed against some
cases, would be competent : and

(ii) an order made by the Supreme Court in such an a
appeal would bind the parties to appeal and would
not affect the validity of the order made in the other
cases."

He, then, distinguished that case from !IE C<lses before him by E
stating thus :

"But that is not the position in these cases. The
precise question that arises for determination in these
cases is whether an Act of Legislature struck down by the
High Court on certain grounds is reversed by the Sup- F
reme Court and the Act declared to be constitutionally
valid, thereafter a validation Act is also passed render-
ing the Judgment of the High Court in the other cases as
ineffective, (sic). On that, the enunciation made in
Joginder Singlz's case does not bear on the point and
assist the Petitioner .... " G

I I. After considering the facts of the M akhan Lal' s case, the
learned Single Judge observed thus :

"This later enunciation by a larger Bench however,
witnout noticin~ the earlier de9isian in Joginder Sini:h's "'
668 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1985] 3 S.C.R.
A case, in unmistakable terms, has ruled that the declara-
tion made by it or enunciation made by it, is binding
on all authorities courts and persons whether they are
parties or not.

Shri Srinivasan urged that the above enunciation
B
in Makhanla/ Waza's case was m1de by the Supreme
Court in the context of a binding order made against
Government and . not ag'llinst those who were not parties
to its earlier order and, therefore, the principles stated
in that case has no principles stated in that case has n·o
c application to the question that arises for determination.

In my view the attempt made by Shri Srinivasan to
distinguish the enunciation made in Makhanlal Waza's
case is without a difference and has no merit at all The
enunciation made is not based on any such distinction
and <lifference.
D
On the application of the principles enunciated in
Makhen/a/ Waza'.< case it follows that the declaration
maae by the Supreme Court in Messrs Hanw Carpora-
tion's case upholding the validity of the Act is binding
on all Courts, authorities and persons in the State of
Karnatatka notwithstanding the fact that the State had
E
filed only one appeal and had. not filed appeals in the
other cases ...... "

f'rom the above discussion, it would appear that the learned
Single Judge felt that Joginder Siugh's case indicated a different
F view.

12. Now we will see how tl1e Division Bench understood
the above propositions. After considering the facts of the case
and extracting the relevant portions of this Court's Judgments,
the Division Bench observed as follows:

G
"ln our opinion, there is no conflict between the
aforesaid two decisions of the Supreme Court.
As rightly pointed out by Shri Srinivasan, in
Makhan/a/ Waza's case, the decision turned on the
fa et that the direction in the earlier Judgment of the
H
SHENOY CO. v. C.T. OFFiCER (Kha/i~, J.) 669
Supreme Court was made against the State Government A
and not against promotees who were no.t parties in the
earlier writ petition. The State Government which was
a party in the earlier writ petition, was bound by the
Judgment of the Supreme Court therein and could not
disregard the direction of the Supreme Court on the
ground that the· promotees were not parties in the earlier B
writ petition. Thus, the decision of the Supreme Court
in Makhanlal Waza's case is distinguishable on facts.
As the material facts of the present cases are similar to
those in Joginder Singh's case, the law laid down by
the Supreme Court in that case, is squarely applicable to
these cases." c
From the above conclusion, it appears that the Division
Bench felt that the law laid down in Joginde Singh's case
applied to the appeals before it and that the decision of the Sup-
reme Conrt in M akhanlal' s case was distingnishabfo on facts.
As indicated above, the appeals were dismissed relying upon D
Section 3 of the repealing Act of 1981.

13. We will now consider the submissions made before us
with reference to the above two decisions of this Court and exa-
mine the correctness of the findings entered by the learned Single
E
Judge and the Division Bench.

The main thrust of the submission made by the learned
counsel for appellants in these appeals is that the writ of mandamus
issued by the High Court in their favour was effective since the
Judgment in their favour was not challenged by filing appeals be-
fore this court. It is submitted that the law laid down by this F
Court would apply only against the Hansa Corporation, against whom
alone the State had filed an appeal. In support of this contention
the following passage at page 177 in Joginder Singh's case was
relied upon :
G
"All the four petitions were delt with together and
were disposed of by a common Judgment so that relief
accordiing to Joginder Singh, the respondent before us,
in Writ application No. 1559 of !960 was also granted to
the other three petitioners. The State, however, has pre-
ferred no appeal against the orders in the other. three H
670 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1985] 3 S.C.R.
A
petitions, and Mr. Agarwal, learned counsel for the res·
pondent, raises the contention that as the orders in the
· other three petitions have become final, any order passed
in this appeal at variance with the relief granted in the
other three petitions would create inconsistent degree in
B respect of the same matter and so we should disl)'.liss the
present appeal as incompetent. We, however, ,consider
that this would not be the legal effect of any ord6r passed
by this Court in this appeal and that there is no.' merit in
this objection as a bar to the hearing of the appeal. In
our opinion, the true position arising, if the present
c appeal by the State Government should succeed, would
be that the finality of the orders passed in the other three
writ petitions by the Punjab High Court wouid not be
disturbed and that those three successful petitioners would
be entitled to retain the advantages which tbey had se-
cured by the decisions in their favour, not being chal-
D lenged by an appeal being filed. That however, would
not help the present respondent, The respondent would
be bound by our Judgment in this appeal and' besides,
so far as the general law is concerned as applicable to
everyone other than the three writ petitioners (who would
be entitled to the benefit of the decisions in their favour
having attained finality), the law will be as laid. down by
E this Court. We, therefore, overrule the preliminary
objection."

14. In our opinion, reliance on this passage by the appel- .
!ants in support of their contention is not justifie.d. The only
F question that fell to be decided in Joginder Singh' s dase was whe-
ther the appeal filed by the State was competent in the adsence of
appeals against the other petitioners. This was answered by the
Court in the affirmative as follows :

G " ...... We, however, consider that this would not be
the legal effect of · any order passed by the Court in this
appeal and that there is no merit in this objection as a
bar to the hearing of the appeal."

H It is this observation that disposes of the preliminary objec-
'BENOY CO. v. C.T. OFFiCBR (Kha/id, J.) 671
tion and the finding of the Court on this objection is contained
A
in the above passage. The sentences that followed, relating to
the effect of the orders passed by the High Court in the other
three writ petitions can only be treated as obiter and therefore
cannot be relied upon by the appellants to press a case that the
law declared by this Court in Hansa Corporaiion's case did not
.. bind them . B

15. The same principle is laid down in Makhan/al Waza's
case. In that case, the State of Jammu and Kashmir attempted to
circumvent the law declared by this Court in Trilok Nath ·and
another v. ·State of Jammu and Kashmir and others(1 ) by which the
State policy of reservation to certain communities was declared bad
c
by this Court with the plea that the vice of ihat Judgment operated
only so far as the parties to the Judgment was concerned and not
against those who were not parties thereto. This Court repelled the
contention and held as follows :

" ...... As regards the other respondent teachers who did D
not figure in the earlier petition, they were all promoted
to the gazetted cadre prior and subsequent to the previous
decision in complete defiance of the law laid down_ by this
Court. Such a course has been sought to be justified on the
tenuous ground that they were not parties to the previous
E
petition and therefore their cases would not be governed
by the decision given in that petition. It may be observed
immediately that such a position is wholly untenable and
misconceived. · The Judgment which was delivered did not
merely declare the promotions granted to the respondents
in the petition filed at the previous Stage as unconstitu· F
tional but also laid down in clear and unequivocal terms
that the distribution of appointments, posts or promotions
made in implementation of the communal policy was con-
trary to the constitutional guarantee of Articie 16. The Jaw
so declared by this Court was binding on the respondent
State and its officers and they were bound to follow it G
whether a majority of the present respondents were parties
or not to the previous petition."

16. In our opinion, both these decisions lay down identitcal

OJ [1969J 1 s.c.R. 103. H
672 SUPREME COURTS REPORTS [1985] 3 S.C.R.
A principles and there is nothing to distinguish between the two. In
the earlier case, this Court, on its facts, overruled the preliminary
objection that absence of appeals against the three petitioners left
out, would not render the appeal before this Court incompetent,
holding thereby that the effect of the decision in that appeal would
B be binding on the appellant therein. In the latter case, this Court
in unmistakable terms laid down that the law laid . down in the
earlier case, namely, Trilok1.ath's case, applied even to those who
were not parties to the case. These two decision were given by two
Constitution Benches of this Court. We find that Joginder Singh's
case was not noted by the Bench that decided Mak/ianlal Waza's
C case. This does nof create any difficulty. As we have already
held, the two decisions, on the principles laid down by them, speak
the same voice, i.e. that the law laid down by the Supreme Court
is binding ·on all, notwithstanding the fact that it is against the
State or a private party and that it is binding on even those who
were not parties before the Court. Since it is necessary to make
D the position of law clear and free from ambiguity, we would set
out our reasons for our conclusiou clearly.

17. Though a large number of writ petitions were filed
challenging the Act, all those writ petitions were grouped together,
heard together and were disposed of by the High Court by a com-
E mon Judgment. No petitioner advanced any contention peculiar or
individual to his petition, not common to others. To be precise,
the dispute in the cause or controversy between the State and each
petitioner had no personal or individual element in it or anything
personal on peculiar to each petitioner. The challenge to the
constitutional validity of 1979 Act proceeded on ideniical grounds
F common to all petitioners. This challenge was accepted by the
High Court by a common Judgment and it was lhis common
Judgment that was the subject matter of appeal before tbis Court in
Hansa Corparation's case. When the Supreme Court repelled the
challenge and held the Act constitutionally valid, it in terms dis-
posed of not the appeal in Jfansa Carparation's case alone, but all
G petitions in which the High Court issued mandamus on the non-
existent ground that the 1979 Act was constitutionally invalid. It
is, therefore, idle to contend that the law laid down by this Court
in that Judgment would bind only the Hansa Carparation and not
the othe~ petitioners against whom the State of Karnataka had not
filed any appeal. To do so is to ignore the binding nature of a
. H Judgment of this Court under Article 141 of the Constitµtion.
SHENOY CO. v. C.T. OFFICER (Khaiid,) 1.) 673

Article 141 reads as follows : A

"The law declared by the Supreme Court shall be
binding on all courts within the territory of India."

A mere reading of this Article brings into sharp focus its ex- B
" panse and its all pervasive nature. ln cases like this, where numerous
petitions are disposed of lly a common Judgment and only one
appeal is filed, the parties to the common Judgment could very
well have and should have intervened and could have requested the
Court to hear ·them also. They cannot be heard to say that the
decision was taken by this Court behind their back or profess o
ignorance of the fact that an appeal had ·been filed· by the State
against the common Judgment. We would like to observe that, in
the fitness of things, it would be ·desirable that the State Govern-
ment also took out publication in such cases to alert parties bound
by the Judgment, of the fact that an appeal had been preferred
before this Court by them. We do not find fault with the State D
for having filed only one appeal. It is, of course, an economising.
procedure.

18. The Judgment in the Hansa Corporation· case rendered
by one of us (Desai,J.) concludes as follows : E

"As we are not able to uphold I the contentions which
found favour with the High Court in striking down the
impugned Act and the notification issued thereunder and
as we find no merit in other contentions canvassed on behalf
of the respondent for sustaining the Judgment of the High F
Court, this appeal must succeed. Accordingly, this appeal
is allowed and the Judgment of the High Court is quashed
and set aside and the petition filed by the respondent in
the High Court is dismissed with costs throughout.'.'
G
To contend that this conclusion applies only to the party
before this Court is to destroy the efficacy and integrity of the
Judgment and to make the mandate of Article 141 illusory. By
setting aside the common Judgment of the High Court, the man-
damus issued by the High Court is rendered ineffective not only in
one case but in all cases. H
6'14 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985 3

A 19. A writ or an order in the nature of mandamus has al-
ways been understood to mean a command issuing from the Court,
competent to do the same, to a public servant amongst others, to
perform a duty attaching to the office, failure to perform which
leads to the initiation of action. In this case, the petitioners-
appellants assert that the mandamus in their case was issued by the )
B '
High Court commanding the authority to desist or forbear from
enforcing the provisions of an Act which was not validly enacted.
In other words, a writ of mandamus was predicated upon the view
that the High Court took that the 1979 Act was co11stitutionally
invalid. Consequently the court directed the authorities under the
c said Act to forbear from enforcing the provisions of the Act qua the ~_
petitioners. The Act was subsequently declared copstitutionally -
valid by this Court. The Act, therefore, was under an eclipse, for
a short duration; but with the declaration of the law by this Court,
the temporary shadow cast on it by the mandamus disappeared and
the Act revived with its full figure, the constitutional invalidity held
D by the High Court having been removed by the Judgment of this
.Court. If the law so declared invalid is held constitutionally valid,
effective and binding by the Supreme Court, the mandamus for-
bearing the authorities from enforcing its provisions ~ould become
ineffective and the authorities cannot be compelled to perform a
negative duty. The declaration of the law is binding on everyone
E and it is therefore, futile to contend that the mandamus would
survive in favour of those parties against whom appeals were not
filed.

20. The fallacy of the argument can be better; illustrated by
looking at the submissions made from a slightly different angle. '\_ "'
F Assume for arguments sake that .the mandamus in favour of the /-
appellants survived notwithstanding the Judgment of this Court.
How do they enforce the mandamus? The .normal procedure is to
move the Court in contempt when the parties against whom man-
damus is issued disrespect it. .Supposing contempt petitions are
G filed and notices are issued to the State. The State's answer to the
Court will be: "Can I be ·punished for disrespecting \he mandamus,
when the law of the land has been laid down by the Supreme Court
against the mandamus issued, which law is equally binding on me
and on you ?". Which Court can punish a party for contempt
under these circumstances ? The answer can be only in the negative
H because the mandamus issued by the High Court becomes ineffective
SHENOY CO. v. C.T. OFFiCER (Kha/id,J.) 675.

and unenforceable when the basis on which it was issued falls, bY A
the declaration by the Supreme Court, of the validity of 1979
Act.

21. In view of this conclusion of ours, we do not think it
necessary to refer to the other arguments raised before the High
Court and which the learned counsel for the appellants attempted B
to raise before us also. The appeals can be disposed of on this
short point stated above. The Judgment of this Court in the Hansa
Corporation's case is binding on all concerped whether they were
parties to the Judgment or not. We would like to make it clear
that there is no inconsistency in the finding of this Court in c
Joginder Singh's case and Makhan/al Waza's case. The ratio is
the same and the appellants cannot take advantage of certain
observations made by this Court in Joginder Singh's case for the
reasons indicated above.

22. In the writ petitions the .challenge is against Section 7 of D
Act No. 10 of 1981 and they contain certain other prayers also. We
do not think it necessary to deal with the contentions raised in them
since it would be an unnecessary exercise, in view of the revival of
the parent Act of 1979 by the Judgment of this Court.

23. In the result, the appeals and the writ petitions are E
dismissed with costs ; cost quantified at Rs.2,000 in each case.

F
S.R. 'Appeals & Petitions dismssed.