it Petition Civil No 611 of 1986
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
HK Puri for the Petitioners
MP Jha for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PG NO 380 KANIA J
This writ petition is filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of lndia by the West Bengal Hosiery Association and certain Hosiery manufacturers and dealers in the State of West Bengal against the State of Bihar and the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes cum Special Secretary Bihar praying for a direction to the Respondents to forebear from levying or imposing or collecting any sales tax on the sale of hosiery goods imported into the State of Bihar from other States for sale during the tenure of Circular No So 934 dated 1st August 1984 exempting from such tax sales of hosiery goods manufactured or produced in the State of Bihar and to refund the amount of sales tax levied and collected on the sale of hosiery goods imported into the State of Bihar from other States in India from 1st August 1984
The Petitioners have also prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the Respondents to cancel withdraw or rescind Notification No SO
934 dated August 1 1984 by which exemption was granted to hosiery industries of Bihar from the levy of sales tax as set out earlier and the Petitioners have also prayed that the Respondents should be directed to refrain from making any discrimination between hosiery goods imported into the State of Bihar and hosiery goods manufactured in the State of Bihar in the levy of Bihar Sales Tax
The writ petition can be very shortly disposed of because the point raised in the writ petition is directly covered by decisions of this Court
By a notification dated 30th September 1983 on and from October 1 1983 Bihar Sales Tax at the rate of 5 per cent ad valorem was imposed on all hosiery goods sold within the State of Bihar irrespective of the place whether the hosiery goods were manufactured
On August 1 1984 a Notification bearing No SO 934 was issued whereby the hosiery goods manufactured by hosiery industries in Bihar were exempted from the levy of sales tax
The said Notification stated that it would remain valid for a period of five years
The reason given for this exemption was the grant of incentives to hosiery industries in Bihar
The contention raised before us by Mr Sorabji learned Counsel for the Petitioners is that by reason of the said Notification all the sales of hosiery goods in Bihar manufactured by hosiery industries outside the State of Bihar are subjected to the levy of sales tax at the rate of 5 per cent whereas the sales of hosiery goods manufactured by hosiery industries in Bihar are exempted from such levy and thus the hosiery industries outside the State of Bihar are clearly discriminated against
It is submitted by learned Counsel that this discrimination violates the provisions of Article 301 of the Constitution of lndia
PG NO 381 The relevant Articles to consider in order to appreciate the contention of the Petitioners are Articles 301  304 of the Constitution of India
The said Articles run as follows 301
Subject to the other provisions of this Part trade commerce and intercourse throughout the territory of lndia shall be free
Notwithstanding anything in article 301 or article 303 the Legislature of a State may by law a impose on goods imported from other States or the Union territories any tax to which similar goods manufactured or produced in that State are subject so however as not to discriminate between goods so imported and goods so manufactured or produced and b impose such reasonable restrictions on the freedom of trade commerce or intercourse with or within that State as may be required in the public interest Provided that no Bill or amendment for the purposes of clause b shall be introduced or moved in the Legislature of a State without the previous sanction of the President
 A plain reading of these Articles would show that it is not open to any State to levy any tax on goods imported from other States or Union territories so as to discriminate between goods so imported and goods manufactured and produced in that State subject to the limitations contained in clause b
In the present case clause b has no application whatsoever because the exemption granted to the sales of hosiery goods manufactured in the State of Bihar has not been granted by any law passed by the legislature of the State of Bihar but by a Notification
We find that the contention urged on behalf of the Petitioners has been accepted in several decisions of this Court
In H Anraj etc
vs Government of Tamil Nadu etc
1985 Supp 3 SCR 342 a Division Bench of this Court comprising Tulzapurkar and Sabyasachi Mukharji JJ was called upon to consider whether an amendment made to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act 1959 and the Orders and Notification issued thereunder whereby in effect exemption from the payment of sales tax was granted to lottery tickets issued by the PG NO 382 Government of Tamil Nadu but the lottery tickets issued by other Government and sold within the State of Tamil Nadu were subjected to sales tax was violative of Article 301 read with Article 304 of the Constitution
A similar challenge was also made to the validity of the West Bengal Taxation Laws Second Amendment Act 1984 and Notification No 1020 FT dated March 29 1984 issued by the State of West Bengal
The Court took the view for the purposes of questions raised in that case lottery tickets could be regarded as goods
The Court held that laws imposing taxes can amount to restrictions on trade commerce and intercourse if they hampered the free flow of trade and they are not what can be termed to be compensatory taxes on regulatory measures
It was held that the sales tax of the kind in question before the Division Bench could not be said to be a measure regulating any trade or a compensatory tax levied for the use of trading facilities
Sales tax which had the effect of discriminating between goods of one State and goods of another might affect the free flow of trade and would offend against Article 301 and would be valid only if it came within the terms of Article 304a
The real question to be considered was whether the direct and immediate result of the impugned Notification was to impose an unfavourable and discriminatory tax burden on the imported goods which in that case were lottery tickets of other State when they were sold within the State of Tamil Nadu and the State of West Bengal as against indigenous goods and that this question had to be considered from the normal business or commercial point of view
If the question was so considered it could be seen that the impugned Notifications would have to be regarded as directly and immediately hampering the free flow of trade commerce and intercourse
This view was taken after considering several decisions of this Court and following the decision of this Court in Firm ATB Mehtab Majid and Co vs State of Madras  Anr 1963 Suppl
2 SCR 435
A similar view has been taken by a Division Bench of this Court comprising Ranganath Misra  MM Dutt JJ in a judgment delivered as recently as January 12 1988 in The Indian Cement  Ors
vs The State of Andhra Pradesh  Ors  where it has been observed p 759 as follows Variation of the rate of inter State sales tax does affect free trade and commerce and creates a local preference which is contrary to the scheme of Part Xlll of the Constitution
 In the present case a perusal of the Notifications referred to earlier show that prima facie a clear discrimination is made against hosiery goods manufactured PG NO 383 outside the State of Bihar and sold in the State of Bihar as the sales of such goods are subjected to the levy of sales tax at the rate of 5 per cent whereas the sales of similar goods manufactured by hosiery industries in the State of Bihar are exempted from sales tax
From a commercial or normal point of view such a discriminatory levy of sales tax is bound to affect the free flow of hosiery goods from outside States into the State of Bihar and would therefore amount to hampering the free flow of trade and commerce
The State of Bihar has not chosen to file any counter to the petition or to justify this discriminatory levy as a regulatory measure or a compensatory tax
The result is that the discrimination made must be regarded as violating the provisions of Article 301 read with Article 304b of the Constitution
This brings us to the question as to the relief to which the Petitioners are entitled
This Court in Weston Electroniks and Anr vs State of Gujarat  Ors dealt with a situation like the one in the case before us
In that case the facts were that Section 7 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act 1969 provides for the levy of sales tax on the turnover of sales of goods specified in Part A Schedule II of the said Act
Entry 80 A of Part A of Schedule II specifies the rate of tax applicable to the turnover of television sets
That rate was 15 per percent originally and upto 1981 and the entry applied to all television sets whether manufactured and sold within the State of Gujarat or imported from outside the State
In 1981 while the rate of tax on electronic goods entering the State for sale therein was maintained at 15 per cent the rate in respect of locally manufactured goods was reduced to 6 per cent
By a Notification dated March 29 1986 issued under sub section 2 of Section 49 of the said Act which empowered the State Government to exempt in part r whole in public interest any specified class of sales from the payment of the whole or any part of the tax payable under that Act in 1986 the rate of sales tax in respect of television sets imported from outside the State was reduced from 15 per cent to 10 per cent and for goods manufactured within the State the rate of sales tax was reduced to 1 per cent
The Petitioners before this Court submitted that the Notification specifying a lower rate for local manufactures should be quashed
It was held that the rate prescribed under Section 7 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act 1969 is the rate applied generally and it represents the normal standard of levy
The lower rate applied to local manufacturers represents a departure from or exception to the general norm
In such a case the Court should when granting relief choose the alternative which would give effect to the statutory intention and following this principle it was PG NO 384 held that the impugned Notifications reserving a lower rate of tax for local manufacturers must be quashed
In the case before us we find that the general rate of sates tax on hosiery goods was 5 per cent and it was the exemption for locally manufactured hosiery goods granted by the said Notification No SO 934 dated August 1 1984 which constituted the departure
It is therefore really this Notification which is discriminatory and which must be struck down
We find that the said Notification No SO 934 dated August 1 1984 is void for the reasons set out earlier and we quash the same
We realise that quashing of this Notification on the ground that it was void ab initio might lead to undue hardship for the dealers in the State of Bihar who might have sold locally manufactured hosiery goods without taking into consideration any amount on account of the liability to sales tax in view of the exemption granted by the said Notification dated August 1 1984
In order to obviate this hardship we direct that the arrears of sales tax which would become payable by the dealers in the State of Bihar in respect of sales of local hosiery goods made during the period when the said Notification was in operation should not be collected
Rule is made absolute to the extent aforesaid
However taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case we direct that there shall be no order as to costs


Summary:
A seat in the PG course in MD in the GN Medical College Gwalior fell vacant due to the death of a student
The appellant Dr Sanjay Pradhan staked a claim to this seat under rule 10 of the Madhya Pradesh Selection for Post Graduation Courses Clinical Para clinical and Non clinical Courses in Medical Colleges of Madhya Pradesh Rules 1984
Inasmuch as the vacancy arose towards the end of the academic year the authorities took no steps to fill it up
The appellant s writ petition was dismissed By the MP High Court
The High Court construed the words filled up in that year  in r 10 as meaning that a vacancy in any particular academic year must be filed up in that year
One seat in the PG Course in MS which was occupied by Dr Smt
Dhurupkar was transferred from Medical College Jabalpur to Medical College Bhopal with a view to accommodate her
The appellant Dr Sanjay Kumar moved the authorities seeking admission against that seat contending that the seat had become available in terms of r 10
The authorities disallowed his claim
His writ petition was dismissed by the High Court in limine holding that the seat occupied by Dr Smt
Dhurupkar had been transferred with her and hence the seat in fact was not available
It was submitted before this Court that the High Court has consistently been taking a view that it has the power as well as the duty to issue an appropriate writ direction or order for the backlog  of seats to be filled up whenever it finds that the authorities have acted in violation of the norms prescribed by the relevant rules and a deserving candidate has been wrongly denied admission to such a professional course of studies
PG NO 281 PG NO 282 Dismissing the appeals it was HELD 1 Rule 10 must be interpreted by the written text
If the precise words used are plain and un ambiguous the Court is bound to construe them in their ordinary sense and give them full effect
The argument of inconvenience and hardship is a dangerous one and is only admissible in construction where the meaning of the statute is obscure and there are alternative methods of construction
Where the language is explicit its consequences are for parliament and not for the Courts to consider
287C D 2 On a plain construction rule 10 stipulates that if a seat falls vacant for any reason and due to inaction on the part of the authorities the seat is not filled up in the academic year to which it pertains there is no question of the vacancy being carried forward to the next academic year
288A B 3 Normally the question of a seat being filled up must arise at the commencement of the academic year or soon thereafter
When a seat falls vacant in any particular academic year there is a corresponding duty cast on the authorities to take immediate steps to fill up the same
There is no question of a right of admission to a seat falling vacant in the midst of or towards the end of the academic year
288C 4 it is conceded by learned counsel appearing for the State Government that there is no provision which empowered the State Government to transfer a seat in the MS course in MDMS reserved for a medical college to another medical college
It must therefore follow that the High Court was obviously wrong in holding that the seat occupied by Dr Smt
Dhurupkar had been transferred with her when the seat was in fact available
285C D 5 On the construction placed on r 10 of the Rules the appellants are not entitled to any relief
Obviously the seat that became vacant in the academic year 1986 87 cannot now be filed in terms of section 10
295B 6 It is impressed upon the State Government the desirability of taking immediate steps under rule 10 of the Rules to fill up the vacancy in the PG Course in MDMS or the Diploma course of studies in a particular discipline the moment the seat in that discipline is available in any particular academic year
295C D PG NO 283 7 The State Government should ensure that the authorities charged with the duty of granting admission to students under rule 10 of the Rules act with due promptitude and should not by their lethargy or inaction deprive or otherwise meritorious candidate admission to such a higher course of studies to which he was otherwise entitled
Perhaps the solution lies in making a suitable provision in the Rules providing for a reasonable period say fifteen days within which the authorities ought to exercise their power under rule 10 of the Rules failing which the seat available would be deemed to have been filled by the candidate placed first in the waiting list strictly according to merit
295D E King Emperor vs Bensari Lal Sarma LR 1945 72 IA 57 Dr Mrs Urmilla Shukla vs State of MP Misc
Petition No 29783 decided by MP High Court on 17484 Rekha Saxena vs State of MP l985 MPLJ 142 Dr Sunil Gajendragadkar vs State of MP Misc
Petition No 5785 decided by MP High Court on 11385