Civil Appeal No 4650 of 1992
From the Judgment and Order dated 1821991 of the Patna High Court in CWJC 6581 of 1990
Ranjit Kumar for the Petitioners
Ms Sangeeta Aggarwal for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHARMA J
1
Heard the learned Counsel for the parties
Special Leave is granted
This appeal by the State of Bihar and its Officers is directed against the order of the High Court dated 18291 passed on a Writ Petition claiming to have been filed as a Public Interest Litigation for certain reliefs to be made available to a doctor who was earlier in the State service and whose services had been terminated in 1987
The beneficiary of the impugned judgment Dr Ms Sandhya Das was appointed as a Medical Officer in the Bihar State Health Services in 1961 and worked as such till 1971
She left India for higher studies in 1971 after obtaining leave for a period of two years
After the expiry of the leave period she neither returned to India nor made any further application for extension of her leave
Nothing was heard from her thereafter
She was not the only one to do so
A large number of doctors employed in the Bihar Health Services were acting in similar manner causing considerable hardship to the public
As this trend persisted the State authorities could not ignore the problem and the relevant rules were examined legal opinion was obtained and it was decided to take appropriate corrective measures
The absentee doctors presumably placed in more lucrative jobs did not care to inform the department of their addresses and personal service of notice on such doctors could not be effected
In the circumstances acting on the opinion of the Advocate General general notice was published and press communique was issued in newspapers in India and abroad calling upon them to offer their explanations for remaining absent from service for more than five years this period is mentioned in the Rules within the time indicated
Dr Ms Sandhya Das was also one of such doctors and was called upon to join her duty in India by such a communique issued in 1982 telling her that on her failing to do so her services would be terminated in accordance with the Service Code
Nothing was heard from her
The matter of termination of services of such doctors was referred to Bihar Public Service Commission and the Commission gave its concurrence in 1986
Accordingly the services of 320 doctors including that of Dr Das was terminated in 1987
This had the approval of the Bihar Cabinet
The Writ Petition out of which the present appeal arises was filed in 1990 by one Ms Kamlesh Jain as a Public Interest Litigation stating that Dr Das was unwell and was in need of financial help
Some details as to how Dr Das was taken ill and admitted in a hospital in Glasgow and then came back here for further treatment have been given
She was it is stated staying with her brother for sometime on her return to India and eminent doctors of Bihar who were consulted could not get her substantial relief and ultimately she had to be admitted in the PMCH hospital of Bihar in Patna
In this background the writ application was filed
The High Court s judgment under appeal is very perfunctory
The entire Order reads thus  18291
Learned GPI hands over a cheque of Rs 2000 drawn in the name of Dr Sandhya Das to Miss Kamlesh Jain who had filed this writ application as public interest litigation on behalf of Dr Sandhya Das
This has been accepted by Miss Kamlesh Jain
The Payment has been made in compliance with the order dated 18191
We dispose of this writ application with a direction to the respondents to pay the post retirement benefits to Dr Sandhya Das within a period of three months from today
We make it clear that this order will not be construed to mean that Dr Sandhya Das accepts her date of retirement to be 2171987
If so advised she may agitate the matter through a fresh writ application
 We have not been able to discover as to how the writ petitioner became so interested in Dr Das who was being taken care of in the PMCH hospital of Bihar and receiving attention of eminent doctors and who has atleast a brother with whom she was staying for sometime
The learned Counsel for the writ petitioner respondent before us could not tell us about the other family members and relations of Dr Das or how and why in this background the writ petitioner Ms Kamlesh Jain chose Dr Das for showering her benevolence in preference over the far more needy old and sick persons who are unfortunately in large number in Bihar
The impugned judgment also does not indicate any reason
There is no doubt that the State should strive to promote the welfare of its people so that at least the bare necessities of life are met and the needy and the sick are properly looked after
This can be done only by adopting a welfare scheme in the interest of the general public and since the resources of the State are not unlimited the State is not expected in absence of relevant reasons to choose an individual for special treatment at the cost of the others
Ordinarily therefore it is desirable for the State authorities to take up the individual cases coming to their notice and do their best in accordance with the policy decision of general application
This will ensure equal treatment to all of course in accordance with the individual needs
Unless all relevant materials are placed by an applicant it will be an onerous task for the Court to take upon itself to determine the extent of help a particular individual has to get
The circumstance that a particular person is smart enough to approach the Court or is so fortunate to get somebody to do that on his or her behalf cannot be a valid ground to divert the State funds to his or her advantage at the cost of corresponding disadvantage to others
A judicial process should not be allowed to be used for the satisfaction of an individual s whims pious though they may apparently look
Since we do not find any reason in the impugned order or in the writ petition which may justify the relief granted in the present case we are of the view that the writ petition should have been dismissed
The learned Counsel for the respondent made a grievance before us that the cheque for Rs 2000 mentioned in the first paragraph of the High Court s orders has been drawn in the name of Dr Das whose fingers have become stiff and the money therefore could not be encashed
It was suggested that a cheque may be directed to be drawn in the name of the writ petitioner Ms Kamlesh Jain
We do not see any reason for acceding to this prayer as it is not suggested that Dr Das has no relation of her own who can look after her needs
For the reasons indicated above the appeal is allowed the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the writ petition CWJC No 65811990 filed in the High Court is dismissed
There will be no order as to costs
N P V Appeal allowed


Summary:
In the year 1972 the Karnataka Legislature passed a resolution under Article 252 of the Constitution imposing a ceiling on urban immovable property and the acquisition of such property in excess of the ceiling is limit for public purposes and all the matters connected therewith shall be regulated in the State by Parliament by law
On 1474 the Karnataka Land Reforms Amendment Act was enacted and under the Act the tenant of the land covered by the Act was entitled to the grant of occupancy rights after making an application under the Act
The Act came Into force with effect from 2185
But for the purpose of grant of occupancy rights 1474 was the relevant date
In the year 1975 the Karnataka Urban Agglomeration Ordinance was passed whereunder all lands between the periphery of 8 KMs
of the municipal limits of Hubli Dharwad were declared as urban agglomeration land
The Parliament passed the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act 1976 for imposition of ceiling on urban properties and the Ceiling Act was made applicable to Karnataka also in view of the resolution passed by the State Government
The lands involved in the present cases were covered by the development plan by the Belgaum City Town Planning authority as per the Master Plan and they were included and declared as urban agglomeration in the City of Hubli under the provisions of the Ceiling Act
The owners of the agglomeration lands challenged the order of the Land Tribunal under the Land Reforms Act conferring occupancy rights on the tenants before the High Court
They contended that the lands involved in the cases were within the purview of the Ceiling Act and therefore the provisions of the Land Reforms Act had no application to such lands on the ground that the provisions of the Ceiling Act
The writ petitions were dismissed by the High Court
The owner s writ appeals were also dismissed by a common judgment by the Division Bench of the High Court
The Division Bench held that there was no conflict between the two enactments
The judgment of the Division Bench was challenged in SLP Civil No 16041 4288
Many of the similar writ petitions that were pending before the High Court were transferred to the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal
The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the petitions by a common order following the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court
Several Civil revision petitions filed by the land owners against the order of the Appellate Tribunal were dismissed by the High Court
Some of the special leave petitions were filed against the order of the High Court in the said civil revision petitions
The petitioners land owners contended that when in pursuance of the resolution of the State Legislature passed under Article 252 of the Constitution the Parliament legislated in respect of the topic covered by the resolution
The Parliamentary law repealed or superseded the existing State legislation on the topic and therefore such law could not be enforced thereafter and that vesting of tenanted land in the State and conferment of occupancy rights under the provisions of the State Act directly fall under the subject of imposing ceiling on land holding and other matters incidental or ancillary to the main topic of imposing ceiling and therefore they were fully covered by the Ceiling Act passed by the Parliament and the same superseded the State enactment in respect of such lands
The respondents submitted that imposition of ceiling was a distinct and separately identifiable subject and the Parliament was empowered to legislate that the power of the State to legislate in respect of the remaining part of the subject matter was unaffected that when two distinct powers came into existence vesting law making competence in the State and Parliament the pith and substance of the laws made by each of them had to be examined to see whether any one of them encroached the field set apart as falling within the competence of the other body that in any event the provisions of Chapter III of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act had nothing to do with the imposition of ceiling on the urban land and that conferring of occupancy rights etc
to the tenants under Chapter III of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act did not come under the category of the matters connected therewith or ancillary or incidental to the imposition of ceiling on urban immovable property
Dismissing the special leave petitions this Court HELD 101
Article 252 empowers the Parliament to legislate for two or more States on any of the matters with respect of which the Parliament has no power to make law except as provided under Articles 249 and 250
This power to legislate is vested in the Parliament only if two or more State Legislatures think it desirable to have a law enacted by Parliament on such matters in List II ie with respect to which the Parliament has no power to make law for the State
The passing of the resolutions by the State Legislatures is a condition precedent for vesting the Parliament with such power
339 C D 102
The scope of Entry 18 is very wide and the land mentioned therein may be agricultural or non agricultural and may be rural or urban
The subject matter carved out of Entry 18 under the resolutions passed by The various State Legislatures related to only urban immovable property and by virtue of the resolution the law that can be enacted by the Parliament should be a law imposing a ceiling on such urban immovable property 340 B C 103
From the resolution it is clear that the subject matter that was resolved to be entrusted to the Parliament was the one imposing a ceiling on urban immovable property and acquisition of such property in excess of the ceiling
This subject matter is the topic that falls within Entry 18 of List II of Schedule VII to the Constitution and the subject matter of Entry 18 has been originally kept apart for the State Legislature to make law and Parliament had no competence in respect of those matters falling under the wide scope of Entry 18
By virtue of this resolution a part of the area falling under Entry 18 is transferred to the domain of Parliament to make law relating to the matters within the transferred area
339 G H 341 A 201
The primary object and the purpose of the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act 1976 is to provide for the imposition of ceiling on vacant land in urban agglomeration and for acquisition of such lands in excess of the ceiling limit and to regulate the construction of buildings on such lands and for matters connected therewith
340 H 341 A 202
The Karnataka Land Reforms Act as amended in 1974 is a welfare legislation
The object of the Act was to have a uniform law in the State of Karnataka relating to agrarian reforms conferment of ownership on tenants ceiling on land holdings and for certain other matters contained therein
342 D 203
In respect of imposing ceiling on the land under urban agglomeration the provisions of the Ceiling Act alone are applicable and to that extent the provisions of Chapter IV of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act which also deal with the imposition of ceiling would not be applicable
344 C 204
The land in the instant case comes under the urban agglomeration the imposition of the ceiling should naturally be under the provisions of the Urban Ceiling Act and not under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act
344 B C 205
Imposition of ceiling on urban land is a distinct and independent subject as compared to imposition of ceiling on owning or to hold agricultural land or any other kind of property which do not attract the Urban Ceiling Act
These are two distinct powers and therefore the law making competence can be in two different legislative bodies
Consequently it is difficult to hold that the provisions of Chapter III of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act are outside the legislative competence of the State Legislature
350 C D 206
The one topic that is transferred in the resolution passed under Article 252 as distinct and separately identifiable and does not include the remaining topics under Entry 18 in respect of which the State alone has the power to legislate
351 D 207
The legislative power of the State has to be reconciled with that of the Parliament and that in their respective fields each is supreme
Even assuming that the State enactment has same effect on the subject matter falling within the Parliament s legislative competence that by itself will not render such law invalid or inoperative
350 G H 208
There is no conflict between the Ceiling Act and the State Act
The imposition of ceiling on urban immovable property is an independent topic and cannot be construed as to nullify the other subject left in the domain of the State Legislature under Entry 18 inasmuch as imposition of ceiling is a distinct and separately identifiable subject and does not cover the other measures such as regulation of relationship of landlord and tenant in respect of which the State Legislature has competence to legislate
351 C D 209
There is a ceiling provision under Section 452 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act providing for computation of the area in respect of which the tenant may be granted occupancy rights
But it is clear that ceiling on the area in this context is only for the purpose of Section 45
351 F 210
Provisions in the Chapters II III V VI to XI of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act deal with the conferment of occupancy rights on the respective tenants and they do not in any way conflict with the subject matter transferred to the Parliament by the resolution passed under Section 252
351 EF Thumati Venkaiah and others vs State of Andhra Pradesh and of others   Union of India and others vs Valluri Basavaiah Chowdhary and others   Calcutta Gas Company Proprietory Ltd vs State of West Bengal and others and Kannan Devan Hills Produce Company Ltd vs The State of Kerala etc  referred to