http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7  

PETITIONER: HANS RAJ KEHAR & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT04/12/1974

BENCH: KHANNA, HANS RAJ BENCH: KHANNA, HANS RAJ RAY, A.N. (CJ) REDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN GOSWAMI, P.K.

CITATION:  1975 AIR  389            1975 SCR  (2) 916  1975 SCC  (1)  40  CITATOR INFO :  R          1978 SC 209  (2)  D          1983 SC 383  (8,18,19)  R          1992 SC 443  (11,12,13,14)

ACT: Motor  Vehicles  Act, 1939-S.47-Amended by S. 43A  of  Motor Vehicles (U.P. Amendment) Act, 1972- Scope of amendment. Constitution of India, 1950-If amended section violative  of Art. 19(1)(f) and (g).

HEADNOTE: For  the  purpose of making it easier to secure  permits  in respect  of  non  nationalised routes and  to  simplify  the procedure  for this purpose s.47 of the Motor  Vehicles  Act was amended by inserting s.43-A of the Motor Vehicles  (U.P. Amendment)  Act,  1972.  The section provides that,  in  the case of non-nationalised routes. if the State Government  is of  the opinion that it is in the public interest  to  grant permits to all eligible applicants it may by notification in the gazette, issue a direction accordingly.  A  Notification was   issued  by  the  State  Government.   The   appellant, questioned  the  validity of the section as well as  of  the notification both of which were upheld by the High Court. On  appeal  it was contended (i) that the  State  Government issued the impugned notification without applying its  mind, as  such a notification under s.43-A(2) could have been  is- sued  only  in public interest; (ii) that  the  deletion  of s.47(3)  would have the effect of removing the limit on  the number  of  permits for intra-region routes  but  that  fact would  not prevent the imposition of a limit for the  number of  permits  for  inter-region  routes;  and  (3)  that  the impugned  notification  is violative of the  rights  of  the appellants under Art. 19)1)(f) and’ (g) of the Constitution. Dismissing the appeal, HELD  : There is no infirmity in the impugned  notification. Sub-section 2 of s. 43A gives power to the State  Government to  issue directions in respect of  non-nationalised  routes and areas by means of notification in case the Government is of  the opinion that it is in the public interest  to  grant permits   to   all  eligible   applicants.    The   impugned

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7  

notification  recites  that the State Government is  of  the opinion  that it is in the public interest to grant  permits for  non-nationalised  routes  and  areas  to  all  eligible applicants.    The   notification  thus   ,gives   all   the particulars   which  are  required  by  the  statute.    The notification  removed  the bar created by the limit  on  the number  of  permits  for buses which ,could  be  issued  and facilitates the issue of such permits to fresh applicants if they  satisfy the requirement of eligibility.   Any  measure which  results  in   larger number  of  buses  operating  on various  routes would necessarily eliminate or in  any  case minimise  long hours of waiting at the bus stands.  [920  G; 921 A-B] (2)  There is no valid basis for the inference that if there is  no  limit  on the number  of  permits  for  intra-region routes,  limit  on the number of  permits  for  inter-region routes would have to be imposed.  The object of the impugned notification is to liberalise the issue of permits and it is difficult  to  see how such a liberal measure can  have  the effect of introducing strictness or stringency in the matter of grant of permits for inter-region routes. [921 E] (3)  There  is no valid basis for holding that the  impugned provisions  were violative of Art. 19.  There is nothing  in the   notification  which  prevents  the   appellants   from acquiring,  holding  and  disposing  of  their  property  or prevents  them  from  practising  any  profession  or   from carrying  on  any occupation. trade or business.   The  fact that some others have also been enabled to obtain permit for running   buses  cannot constitute  a  violation  of   the appellants’  right founder the above two clauses of Art.  19 of the Constitution. [922 B; 921 G] 917

JUDGMENT: CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal  No.  2072  of 1972. Appeal  from  the  judgment and order  dated  May  17  /3rd August, 1972 of the Allahabad High Court in C.W. Petn.   No. 2438 of 1972. S.   K. Dhaon and S. M. Markandeya, for the appellants. D.   N. Dikshit and O. P. Rana, for the respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KHANNA,  J.-The short question which arises in  this  appeal filed on certificate against the judgment of Allahabad  High Court is the validity of section 43A, inserted in the  Motor Vehicles  Act,  1939  by U.P. Act No. 25 of  1972,  and  the notification dated March 30, 1972 issued under that section. The  High Court upheld the validity of the section  and  the notification. The  material part of section 47 of the Motor Vehicles  Act, 1939  (Act No, 4 of 1939), as it stood before the  amendment made by section 43A in Uttar Pradesh, read as under :               "(1) A Regional Transport Authority shall,  in               considering   an  application  for   a   stage               carriage permit, have regard to the  following               matters, namely :-               (a)   the interest of the public generally;               (b)   the  advantages  to the  public  of  the               service  to be provided, including the  saving               of time likely to be effected thereby and  any               convenience  arising from, journeys not  being               broken;               (c)   the   adequacy   of   other    passenger

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7  

             transport  services  operating  or  likely  to               operate in the near future, whether by road or               other means, between the places to be served;               (d)   the benefit to any particular  locality               or  localities  likely to be afforded  by  the               service;               (e)   the operation by the applicant of  other               transport services, including those in respect               of which applications from him for permits are               pending;               (f)   the  condition of the roads included  in               the proposed route or area; and  shall also take into consideration any  representations made by persons already providing passenger transport  faci- lities by any means along or near the proposed route or area or by any association representing persons interested in the provision  of road transport facilities recognised  in  this behalf by the State Government, or by any local authority or police  authority within whose jurisdiction any part of  the proposed route or area lies-, (2) (3)  A  Regional Transport Authority may, having  regard  to the matters mentioned in sub-section (1), limit the number- 918 Of stage, carriages genarally, or of any specified. type for which stage carriage permits may be granted in the region or in  any  specified. area or any specified route  within  the region." Section 43A has’ been inserted by the Motor Vehicles  (Uttar Pradesh  Amendment)  Act , 1972 (U.P. Act No. 25  of  1972). The material part of section 43A reads as under :-               "(1)  The  State  Government  may  issue  such               directions  of a general character as  it  may               consider necessary or expedient in the  public               interest in respect of any matter relating, to               road  transport  to,,  the  State,   Transport               Authority   or  to  any   Regional   Transport               Authority, and such Transport Authority  shall               give effect to all such directions.               (2)   Without  prejudice to the generality  of               the   foregoing   power,   where   the   State               Government  is  of opinion that it is  in  the               public   interest  to  grant  stage   carriage               permits (except in respect of routes or  areas               for  which schemes have been  published               under  section  68(C)  or  contract   carriage permi ts  or  public carrier  permits  to  all               eligible applicants, it may by notification in               the Gazette issue a direction accordingly, and               thereupon all transport authorities as well as               the   State   Transport   Appellate   Tribunal               constituted under section 64 shall proceed  to               consider and decide all applications,  appeals               and  revisions in that behalf  (including  any               pending  applications, appeals and  revisions)               as if-               (a)   in section 47,-               (i)   for  sub-section (1) the following  sub-               section were substituted :               (i) A Regional, Transport Authority shall,  in               considering  an application for a  stage  car-               riage  permit,  have regard to  the  following               matters, namely-               (a)   the interest of the public generally;               (b)   the  advantage  to  the  public  of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7  

             service  to,  be,, provided,,  including.  the               saving  of time likely to be effected  thereby               and any convenience arising from journeys  not               being broken;               (c)   the  benefit to any particular  locality               or  localities  likely to be afforded  by  the               service;               and  shall also take into.  consideration  any               representation made by any local authority  or               police authority within whose jurisdiction any               part of the proposed route or area lies.’;               (ii)  sub-section (3) were omitted;                                    919               The   impugned  notification dated  March  30,               1972   roads  as  under  "WHEREAS  the   state               government  is  of opinion that it is  in  the               public   interest  to  grant  stage   carriage               permits (except in respect of routes or  areas               for  which schemes have been  published  under               section 68C of the Motor Vehicles Act,  1939),               contract  carriage permits and public  carrier               permits to all eligible applicants;               Now,  therefore,  in  exercise  of  the  power               conferred by section 43A of the Motor Vehicles               Act,  1939, the Governor is pleased to  direct               that stage carriage permits (except in respect               of   routes  or  areas  aforesaid),   contract               carriage  permits and public  carries  permits               shall be granted according to the provision of               the said Act to all eligible applicants." The  petitioner-appellants hold stage carriage  permits  for operating  buses on various routes in Uttar Pradesh.  It  is not necessary to set out any other fact because all that  we are  concerned with is the validity of section 43A  and  the notification issued thereunder. The Motor Vehicles (Uttar Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. 25 of 1972) received the assent of the President  on May  1,  1972 and was published in the U.P. Gazette  of  the same date.  Before that the Governor of U.P. had promulgated U.P. Ordinance No. 9 of 1972.  U.P. Act No. 25 of 1972  took the place of that ordinance.  The ordinance was repealed  by section  3 of the amending Act.  The following Statement  of Objects and Reasons was given when introducing   the    Bill which- after being passed by the legislature took the  shape of the amending Act:               "Operators  engage  in  a  race  for  securing               permits   for   stage   carriages   on    non-               nationalised routes.  Due to limitation on the               number of permits this business is  controlled               by  a few persons.  Complaints in this  regard               are  made every other day.  Therefore, with  a               view to making it easier to secure permits  in               respect  of  non-nationalised  routes  and  to               introducing  simplicity  in procedure  and  to               providing  greater  employment  and   securing               equitable  distribution  thereof it  was  con-               sidered  necessary to amend sections  47,  50,               55, 57 and 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939,               suitably.  Accordingly, in the public interest               and  with  the aforesaid objects in  view  the               Motor   Vehicles  (Uttar  Pradesh   Amendment)               Ordinance, 1972 was promulgated.  This Bill is               introduced to replace the said ordinance." Perusal  of  section  43A  shows  that  the  object  of  the legislature in inserting it in the Motor Vehicles Act was to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7  

make  it  easier  to  secure  permits  in  respect  of  non- nationalised  routes.   The section seeks  to  simplify  the procedure  for this purpose.  It has accordingly  been  pro- vided  that  in the case of non-nationalised routes  if  the State Government is of the opinion that it is in the  public interest to grant permits to all eligible applicants, it may by   notification   in  the  Gazette   issue   a   direction accordingly.   Once such notification is issued a number  of consequences which have been enumerated in the various 920 clauses  of  sub-section (2) of  section-43A,  follow.   One effect   of   such  notification  is  that   the   transport authorities   shall   proceed   to   consider   and   decide applications,  appeals  and  revisions  (including   pending applications  appeals ’and revisions) as if sub-section  (3) of  section  47  were omitted.   Under  that  sub-section  a Regional  Transport  Authority  was required  to  limit  the number.  of stage carriages generally, or of  any  specified type  for which stage carriage permits might be. granted  in the  region  or in any specified area or  on  any  specified route  within the region.  As a consequence of the  omission of that sub-section, it would be no longer necessary for the Regional Transport Authority to put a limit on the number of stage  carriage permits.  The result would be that it  would be  permissible to issue any number of such  permits  having regard  to  the  interest  of  the  public  generally,   the advantage  to  the  public of the service  to  be  provided, including  the saving of time likely to be effected  thereby and  any convenience arising from journeys not being  broken as also the benefit to any particular locality or localities likely  to  be  afforded  by  the  service.   The   Regional Transport Authority has also to take into consideration  any representations   made  by  a  local  authority  or   police authority  within  whose.  jurisdiction  any  part  of   the proposed route or area lies.  Sub-section (1) of section 43A clothes the State Government with power to issue  directions of  a  general  character as it may  consider  necessary  or expedient  in the public interest in respect of  any  matter relating to road transport.  The transport authorities  have been  enjoined to give effect to all such  directions.   The State   Government  in  exercise  of  the  power   conferred apparently by sub-section (2) of section 43A has issued  the impugned  notification  dated March 30, 1972 in  respect  of routes  or areas for which schemes have not  been  published under  section 68C of the Motor Vehicles Act.  According  to the  notification,  contract  carriage  permits  and  public carrier permits shall, except in respect of routes or  areas mentioned  above, be granted according to the provisions  of the said Act to all eligible applicants. It  has  been argued on behalf of the  appellants  that  the State  Government issued the impugned  notification  without applying its mind, as such a notification under  sub-section (2)  of  section 43A could have been issued only  in  public interest.  We are unable to accede to this contention as  we find  no such infirmity in the impugned notification.   Sub- section  (2)  of  section  43A  gives  power  to  the  State Government to issue direction in respect of non-nationalised routes  and  areas  by means of notification  in  case  that Government  is  of  the opinion that it  is  in  the  public interest  to grant permits to all eligible applicants.   The impugned  notification recites that the State Government  is of  the opinion that it is in the public interest  to  grant permits  for  non-nationalised  routes  and  areas  to   all eligible  applicants.  The notification thus gives  all  the particulars  which  are required by the statute.  It  is  no

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7  

doubt true that the State Government failed to file a return in  the High Court in support of its plea that the  impugned notification  was issued because the Government was  of  the opinion that it was in the public interest to grant  permits to  all  eligible  applicants, but  that  omission,  in  our opinion, is not very material as that fact is 921 self-evident   from  the  notification.   The   notification removes  the  bar  created by the limit  on  the  number  of permits for buses which could be issued and, facilitates the issue  of such permits to fresh applicants if  they  satisfy the  requirement  of.  eligibility.   It  hardly  need  much argument  to show that the larger number of buses  operating on different routes would be for the convenience and benefit of the travelling public and as such would be in the  public interest.   Any  measure which results in larger  number  of buses   operating  on  various  routes   would   necessarily eliminate or in any case minimise long hours  of waiting  at the  bus stands.  It would also relieve congestion and  pro- vide for quick and prompt transport service.  Good transport service  is one of the basic requirements of  a  progressive society.   Prompt and quick transport service being a  great boon  for those who travel, any measure which  provides  for such  an  amenity  is in the very nature of  things  in  the public interest. Argument has also been advanced that the deletion of section 47(3)  would  have the effect of removing the limit  on  the number  of  permits for intra-region routes  but  that  fact would  not prevent the imposition of a limit for the  number of permits for inter-region routes.  This argument has  been advanced  in the context of the case of the appellants  that the impugned provisions discriminate in the matter of  issue of  permits  for intra-region routes and  those  for  inter- region routes and as such are violative of article 14 of the Constitution.  We arc not impressed by this argument for  we find  no valid basis for the inference that if there  is  no limit  on  the number of permits  for  intra-region  routes, limit on the number of permits for inter-region routes would have to be imposed.  The object of the impugned notification is to liberalise the issue of permits and we fail to see  as to  how  such  a  liberal measure can  have  the  effect  of introducing  strictness  or,, stringency in  the  matter  of grant  of permits for inter-region routes.  Assuming that  a different  rule is applicable in the matter of  inter-region routes,   the  differentiation  is  based  upon   reasonable classification.  It is nobody’s    case  that  the  impugned provision brings about discrimination in the matter of grant of permits between applicants belonging to the same    class. The argument about the impugned provision being violative of article 14 is wholly untenable. The  contention that the impugned notification is  violative of  the rights of the appellants under article  19(1)(f)  or (g)  of the Constitution is equally devoid of force.   There is nothing in the notification which prevents the appellants from  acquiring, holding and disposing of their property  or prevents  them  from  practising  any  profession  or   from carrying  on  any occupation. trade or business.   The  fact that  some others have also beer enabled to  obtain  permits for  running  buses  cannot constitute a  violation  of  the appellants, rights under the above two clauses of article 19 of the Constitution.  The above provisions are not  intended to  grant a kind of monopoly to a few bus operators  to  the exclusion of other eligible persons.  No right is guaranteed to  any private party by article 19 of the  Constitution  of carrying  on  trade and business  without  competition  from

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7  

other eligible persons.  Clause (g) of article 19(1) gives a right  to all citizens subject to article 19(6) to  practise any profession or to carry on any 922 occupation, trade or business.  It is an enabling  provision and  does not confer a right on those already  practising  a profession or carrying on any occupation, trade or  business to exclude and debar fresh eligible entrants from practising that  profession or from carrying on that occupation,  trade or business.  The said provision is not intended to make any profession,  business or trade the exclusive preserve  of  a few persons.  We, therefore, find no valid basis for holding that the impugned provisions are violative of article 19. The appeal consequently fails and is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed P.B.R. 923