20 January 1956
Supreme Court


Case number: Writ Petition (Civil) 604 of 1954






DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20/01/1956


CITATION:  1956 AIR  298            1956 SCR  (8)  28

ACT: Fundamental  Rights, infringement of-Acts  creating  virtual State  monopoly in motor transport  basiness-Application  of one  Act to certain groups of owners and another to  certain others operating different routes in different localities-If makes for discrimination and inequality-If restricts  rights to   hold   property  and  practise  trade   and   business- Notification  terminating permitsfor taking  over  transport business,  if  confiscates  property  without  compensation- Freedom of inter-state and intrastate trade, if afundamental right"  Constitution of India, Arts. 14, 19(1)(f)  and  (g), 31(2),  301, 305Orissa Motor Vehicles (Begulation  of  Stage Carriage  and Public Carrier’s Services) Act,  1947  (Orissa Act XXXVI of 1947), s. 4---Orissa Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1948 (Orissa Act I of 1949), S. 1.

HEADNOTE:   The  petitioners  were owners of Stage  Carriage  Services holding -permits under the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939.   The State Government of Orissa, in pursuance of its scheme of  a Nationalised State ’Transport as contemplated by the  Orissa Motor  Vehicles  (Regulation of Stage  Carriage  and  Public Carrier’s  Services) Act of 1947 (Orissa Act XXXVI of  1947) and  Orissa Act I of 1949, which amended the  provisions  of the  Motor Vehicles Act of 1939, issued notifications  under those Acts intimating the owners of different Stage Carriage Services operating different routes within the districts  of Orissa  that  with  effect from the 1st  of  January,  1955, either  the  Orissa Road Transport Co. Ltd.,  or  the  State Transport   Service,  formed  under  the  two  Acts,   would exclusively  operate the said routes.  The  owners  impugned the  Acts as unconstitutional and violative of their  funda- mental  rights.  It was contended that the two  Acts,  whose provisions were materially different, discriminated  against them  and in favour of the aforesaid transport  services  as also  in their arbitrary application to different zones  and territories  of  the State and contravened Art.  14  of  the Constitution.  It was further contended that the  provisions of  the  Acts and rules framed  thereunder  infringed  Arts.



19(1)(f)  and (g) by putting restrictions on the  rights  to hold  property and to practise trade and business, that  the Notifications 29 purporting to take away their transport business amounted to confiscation  without compensation and infringed Art.  31(2) and  lastly,  that  the impugned Acts  violated  freedom  of inter-state  and intrastate trade guaranteed by Art. 301  of the Constitution.  Held, that the owners of Stage Carriage Services  operating a particular route or in a particular area formed a separate group or class by themselves and so long as each one of such a  group or class was governed by the same Act  and  treated JUDGMENT: the best judge as to which of the two impugned Acts, or  the Act  of  1939  which they sought to amend,  should,  in  its administrative  convenience,  be  applied  to  a  particular locality  or  what mode it should follow for  the  implemen- tation of its scheme and such zonal or territorial divisions it  thought  fib  to  make for  that  purpose  according  to different  circumstances prevailing in different  localities could  not be held to be either discriminatory or  violative of the equal protection of law.     That  the position of the permit-holders under  the  two Acts was not on a par, and was materially different and they fell into two distinct classes and, consequently payment  of compensation  under one and non-payment under the other  did not make for discrimination.   That  the  contention  that the impugned  Acts  created  a monopoly in favour of either the Joint-Stock Company or  the State  by ousting the private Stage Carriage  Services  from the  business  and thereby infringed Art.  19(1)(f)  was  no longer tenable in view of Art. 19(6) of the Constitution  as amended by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act of 1951. Saghir  Ahmad v. The State of U. P. ([1965] 1  S.C.R.  707), held inapplicable.   Bhikaji  Narain  Dhakras v. The State  of  Madhya  Pradesh ([1955] 2 S.C.R. 589), applied.    That  the  provisions of the impugned Acts could  not  be held   to  contravene  Arts.  19(1)(f)  and  31(2)  of   the Constitution as the Act of 1947 did provide for compensation for premature termination and under the Act of 1949, renewal could  not  be  claimed  as  a  matter  of  right  and   any deprivation  of proprietary right would be by  authority  of law. That  freedom of inter-state or intrastate trade  guaranteed by  Art.  301  of  the  Constitution  is  not  one  of   the fundamental rights that can be enforced under Art. 32 of the Constitution  and  Art. 305 as amended by  the  Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act of 1955 was a complete answer to that contention of the petitioners.

& ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Petitions Nos. 604,605, 647-649) 663, 671 and 692 of 1954. Petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India  for the enforcement of fundamental rights. 30 S.   P.  Sinha, (B.  Patnaik, with him) for the  petitioners in P. Nos. 604, 605, 649 and 663 of 1954. M.   C. Setalvad, Attorney-General of India, (Porus A  Mehta and P.G. Gokhale., with him) for the respondents in all  the Petitions.



1956.  January 20.  The Judgment of the Court was  delivered by BHAGWATI   J.-These  petitions  under  article  32  of   the Constitution  are  filed  by the owners  of  Stage  Carriage Services  plying  their  buses  on  several  routes  in  the districts of the State of Orissa impugning the provisions of Orissa  Act  XXXVI  of  1947 and Orissa Act  I  of  1949  as violative of their fundamental rights.  They raise a  common question of law and can be disposed of by one judgment.   The State of Orissa embarked upon a scheme of Nationalised State Transport and, as a first step towards it, enacted  an Act  styled the Orissa Motor Vehicles (Regulation  of  Stage Carriage  and Public Carrier’s Services) Act,  1947  (Orissa Act  XXXVI  of 1947), which modified the provisions  of  the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, for the better regulation of Stage Carriage  and Public Carrier’s Services in the  Province  of Orissa.   This Act envisaged the formation of a  Joint-Stock Company in which the Central and the Provincial  Governments shall  together have controlling interests for providing  in stages  or in one stage a more efficient  administration  of the  entire stage carriage and public carrier’s services  in the Province of Orissa.  Such a Company was to be authorised to  run stage carriage and public carrier’s services in  the Province of Orissa to the exclusion of all other persons  in the routes and areas over which it extended its  activities, and  with  that  end in view, the provisions  of  the  Motor Vehicles  Act,  1939, were modified  as  therein  specified. Section   4  of  the-  Act  provided  that  the   Provincial Government  may,  if they think fit by  notification  direct that  the powers conferred by the Motor Vehicles Act,  1939, on  a Provincial Transport Authority or  Regional  Transport Authority shall 31 be  held  in abeyance with respect to  the  issue,  renewal, suspension  or  transfer  of  permits  for  stage   carriage services and public carrier’s services.  Such a notification was  to be effective according to the directions  either  in the  whole  of the Province or in any specifled area  or  in respect  of any specified route or routes.  On the issue  of such a notification, the abovementioned powers conferred  on the Provincial Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority  were  to  be held in  abeyance  and  all  permits issued,  renewed  or  transferred by  them  were  to  become inoperative and the Provincial Government alone was to  have the  power to issue or renew permits or to  grant  temporary permits  or  to  suspend or to transfer  permits  for  stage carriage services and public carrier’s services.   Whilst  the State of Orissa was examining the question  of the  formation  of such a Company, the merger  of  feudatory States  of Orissa with the Province of Orissa took place  on the 1st January, 1948.  Some of these Durbars had their  own transport  services and these were taken over by  the  State Government of Orissa.  Orissa was then divided into 5  zones for  the  purpose of proper development of  road  transport, viz.,  Sambalpur,  Keonjhar,  Koraput,  Ganjam  and  Cuttack zones.   It  was decided by the  Government  to  nationalise passenger  service transport in the first three zones to  be run departmentally based on the nucleus services taken  over from  the  feudatory States which had merged.  In  order  to give,  effect  to this decision, the Orissa  Motor  Vehicles (Amendment)  Act  1948 (Orissa Act I of  1949)  was  enacted which  further amended the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, in  the manner therein specified.  Section 1(3) of that Act provided that  the  remaining provisions of the Act shall  come  into force  in such specified areas of the district or  districts



as  the Provincial Government may by notification from  time to  time  appoint.  The Provincial Government  may  also  by notification  withdraw the remaining provisions of  the  Act from  any specified areas.  It Was further provided that  on and  from the date when the remaining provisions of the  Act came into force in any specified areas, the 32 provisions of Orissa Act XXXVI of 1947 shall be repealed  in respect  of the said specified areas and when the  remaining provisions  of  the Act were withdrawn  from  any  specified areas,  the provisions of Orissa Act XXXVI of 1947 shall  be deemed  to be revived in the said specified areas  from  the date of publication of the notification of withdrawal.   The effect of these provisions was that in those areas  or districts  where  a notification under section 4(1)  of  the Orissa  Act XXXVI of 1947 was not issued, the provisions  of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, continued to apply; where such a  notification  was issued, the provisions  of  Orissa  Act XXXVI of 1947 came to be applied except where, by virtue  of the power reserved under section 1 of Orissa Act I of  1949, the remaining provisions of that Act were brought into force by  a notification issued in that behalf, in which case  the provisions  of  Orissa Act XXXVI of 1947  were  repealed  in respect  of the said specified areas and the  provisions  of Orissa Act I of 1949 becameapplicable.  These were the three distinct  sets  of circumstances which would  prevail  at  a given  time  after  the enactment of Orissa Act  I  of  1949 according  as the relevant notifications under section  4(1) of Orissa Act XXXVI of 1947 or under section 1(4) of  Orissa Act I of 1949 were issued bringing particular area or  areas within the operation of the said respective Acts.   Whereas a Joint-Stock Company in which the Central and the Provincial  Governments  were together to  have  controlling interests  was envisaged in Orissa Act XXXVI of 1947,  State Transport  Service  was envisaged in Orissa Act  I  of  1949 which  defined State Transport Service to mean a service  in which  the  Orissa  State has entire  or  partial  financial interest and which the Provincial Government may by  notifi- cation  declare  to  be a State Transport  Service  for  the purposes of the Act.  A Joint-Stock Company was  accordingly formed  in 1950 which was called the Orissa  Road  Transport Co., Ltd.  The Transport Services which were run through the Joint-stock Company were termed the "Rationalised Services". The 33 Services which were run through the State Transport  Service were termed the "Nationalised Services".  In  pursuance  of the above scheme  of  Nationalised  State Transport,   the   State   Government   of   Orissa   issued notifications  and press notes which gave intimation to  the owners  of Stage Carrier Services operating on  the  several routes within the districts of Orissa that with effect  from the  1st January 1955 either the Orissa Road Transport  Co., Ltd.,  or the State Transport Service will be operating  the said respective routes.  That was the occasion for the above petitions  being filed by the owners of the  Stage  Carriage Services  plying their buses on the said  respective  routes impugning Orissa Act XXXVI of 1947 and Orissa Act I of  1949 as unconstitutional and void as aforesaid.   The petitions before us are not Confined to the areas  and routes  where  only Rationalised  Services  or  Nationalised Services  are  contemplated to be introduced  by  the  State Government.  Petitions Nos. 604 of 1954, 648 of 1954,664  of 1954,  666  of 1954 and 671 of 1954 are concerned  with  the nationalisation of the services and the routes operated upon



by  the  petitioners in those petitions are intended  to  be served  by the State Transport Service.  Petitions Nos.  605 of  1954, 647 of 1954, 649 of 1954, 663 of 1954 and  665  of 1954 are concerned with the rationalisation of the  services and  the  routes operated upon by the petitioners  in  those petitions  are  intended  to be served by  the  Orissa  Road Transport  Co., Ltd.  Petition No. 692 of 1954 is not  clear whether  the  scheme to be put into operation by  the  State Government  in  the route operated upon  by  the  petitioner therein is intended to be nationalised or rationalised.  One thing, however, is common between all these petitioners that their  permits  under which they have been  operating  their buses  upon  those  routes for the last  several  years  are liable to be either terminated or cancelled or are not to be renewed  under  the scheme of  Nationalised  Road  Transport Services  and either the State Government or  the  Transport Authorities  will grant the permits on those routes only  to the Orissa Road 5 34 Transport Co. Ltd or the State Transport Service as the case may be.   The  provisions of the impugned Acts were attacked on  the ground that there was discrimination in favour of the  State Transport Service and the Orissa Road Transport Co. Ltd.  It was  urged  that the State could  not  discriminate  against persons in its own favour as well as in favour of the Joint- Stock  Company  formed  for  carrying  on  motor   transport business as that would be a negation of equality  guaranteed under  article  14 of the Constitution.  It was  also  urged that zonal and territorial discrimination in the application of the impugned Acts arbitrarily offended against article 14 of  the Constitution.  A further ground of, attack was  that the  said  provisions  of the impugned Acts  and  the  rules framed thereunder infringed article 19(1)(f) and (g) of  the Constitution  as  they  put  restrictions  on  the  citizens regarding  their  rights to hold property  and  to  practice trade  or business.  Article 31(2) was also alleged to  have been infringed because the Gazette Notification of the State of  Orissa  purporting to take away  the  petitioners  motor transport  business amounted to confiscation and  the  inte- rests  of the petitioners in a commercial  undertaking  were purported  to be acquired without making any provisions  for compensation.   The  impugned  Acts, it  was  alleged,  also violated the guarantee of freedom of inter-State and  intra- state trade embodied in article 301 of the Constitution.   Our attention was drawn to the relevant provisions of  the Motor  Vehicles  Act,  1939, Orissa Act XXXVI  of  1947  and Orissa  Act  I of 1949 regarding the issue  and  renewal  of permits.  Under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the Provincial Transport  Authority  and the Regional  Transport  Authority were  invested  with the requisite powers  in  this  behalf. Sections  47 and 55 prescribed the matters to be  considered by the Regional Transport Authority in considering  applica- tions  for  stage  carriage  permits  and  public  carrier’s permits and section 58 provided for the duration and renewal of  permits.  So far as renewals of permits were  concerned, it was provided that, other conditions 35 being  equal,  applications  for  renewal  shall  be   given preference  over  new  applications  for  permits.   When  a notification  was  issued under section 4(1) of  Orissa  Act XXXVI  of  1947,  the powers  conferred  on  the  Provincial Transport  Authority or the Regional Transport Authority  by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, were held in abeyance and  the



Provincial  Government alone was invested with the power  to issue  or  renew permits.  In the granting  or  refusing  to grant such permits, the Provincial Government was not  bound to take into consideration the matters specified in sections 47  or 55 of the Motor Vehicles Act) 1939.   The  Provincial Government was also authorised by notification to cancel any permit  granted under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939,  without following  the  provisions of section 60 of that  Act.   The only  provision  which was made in section 6 of  Orissa  Act XXXVI  of 1947 in this behalf was that when a permit  became inoperative  under  section  4(2)  or  was  cancelled  under section  5 of that Act, compensation as  therein  prescribed was payable to such permit holder.   Sections 3 and 4 of Orissa Act I of 1949 added two further clauses  to  sections 47 and 55 of the Motor  Vehicles  Act, 1939, viz.)   "  (g)  other conditions being equal, in the  interest  of proper co-ordination of transport facilities, the expediency of giving due consideration to a State Transport Service;   (h)the  necessity for preventing unhealthy competition  in any  route  or routes or area on which the  State  Transport Service may ply;"   It  was  pointed out that the whole scheme of  Orissa  Act XXXVI  of  1947  and Orissa Act I of 1949 was  to  oust  the owners of stage carriage service from business and create  a virtual monopoly in favour of the Orissa Road Transport  Co. Ltd.  or the State Transport Service and  thus  discriminate against persons in favour of the Joint-Stock Company or  the State.   Even though the Provincial Government was  invested with power to issue or renew the permits which would  become inoperative, under section 4(2) (b) of Orissa 36 Act XXXVI of 1947, that power would be exercised only having regard to the object which the State Government had in  view in enacting that Act and the only result would be the  issue of  permits in favour of the Orissa Road Transport Co.  Ltd. The  position under Orissa Act I of 1949 would be no  better in  spite  of  clauses  (g) and (h)  having  been  added  to sections 47 and 55 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939,  because the  expediency  of  giving due  consideration  to  a  State Transport Service and the necessity for preventing unhealthy competition therein mentioned would also have the effect  of eliminating   the  private-owned  stage   carriage   service altogether  and replacing in its stead the  State  Transport Service.   It  was  also pointed out that the  State  Government  had arbitrarily and without any rational basis selected  certain districts like Ganjam and Puri and parts of Cuttack District for  starting  the Orissa Road Transport Co. Ltd.,  and  had introduced   State  Transport  Service  in   certain   other districts  such  as Sambalpur, Keonjhar, Bolangir  and  some parts  of  Cuttack District.  Orissa Act XXXVI of  1947  was applied  to the former Districts while Orissa Act I of  1949 was applied to the latter Districts.  The provisions of both the  Acts  being materially different as set out  above  the application of one Act to particular districts of the  State and of the other Act to the other districts of the State was violative  of  the  guarantee of equal  protection  of  laws enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution.  The owners  of stage  carriage  services to whom Orissa Act XXXVI  of  1947 applied had the additional advantage of having  compensation granted  to them in accordance with the terms of  section  6 thereof which advantage was not available to those owners of stage  carriage  services to whom Orissa Act I of  1949  was applied.   There  was  also a further  advantage  which  was



available  to the persons to whom Orissa Act XXXVI  of  1947 applied and it was section 8 of the Act which provided that, when permits had been cancelled by the Provincial Government under  the provisions of the Act, the Provincial  Government may, by notification, require such 37 permit  holders or owners to sell any specified  vehicle  or vehicles  and any other movable or immoveable property  used in  connection  with the operation and maintenance  of  such vehicle or vehicles, to the Company, when so constituted, at the rates assessed in the prescribed manner.  This advantage was  not  available to the persons to whom Orissa Act  I  of 1949 applied.   It  has,  however,  to be remembered that  the  Scheme  of Nationalised  State  Transport had its origin in  the  White Paper  published by the Government of India towards the  end of  the year 1944 with a view to removing  the  difficulties coming  in the way of proper development of  road  transport and  the need for cheap, efficient and rapid road  transport services  and  the elimination of wasteful  competition  had been  emphasized therein.  The matter was discussed  at  the meeting  of the Transport Advisory Council held in 1945  and the  Transport Advisory Council had then drafted a  code  of principles and practice for regulating the co-ordination  of rail-road  transport services which were later  ratified  by the  State  Government  and accepted by  the  Government  of India.   It was this scheme which was embarked upon  by  the State  of Orissa and several steps were taken by  the  State Government  in  order to implement that scheme.   The  first step towards such implementation was the enactment of Orissa Act XXXVI of 1947 which envisaged the formation of a  Joint- Stock  Company  in  which the  Central  and  the  Provincial Governments  shall  together  have  controlling   interests. Before  such a Company could be formed the feudatory  States in Orissa had merged in the Province on the 1st January 1948 and the State Government had on its band transport  services which  were owned by such States and had been taken over  by the  State Government of Orissa.  These  transport  services formed  the  nucleus  on  the  basis  of  which  the   State Government thought of adopting another mode of  implementing the scheme of Nationalised State Transport and Orissa Act  I of  1949 was passed envisaging the State  Transport  Service which  would  also serve the same purpose.  When  these  two modes of implementation, viz., the formation of a 38 Joint-Stock Company and the starting of the State  Transport Service, were adopted by the State Government, the  question naturally arose as to bow these two different ideas could be worked out the fulfil  ment of the end in view.  The nucleus for  transport  services which had been owned by  the  State Government had to be utilised so far as it was available and having  regard  to the situation as it obtained,  the  State Government  naturally  thought of applying Orissa Act  I  of 1949  to  certain districts of the State leaving  the  other districts  to be served by the mode envisaged in Orissa  Act XXXVI of 1947.  Such a zonal or territorial or  geographical division   of  the  several  districts  of  the  State   for implementation of the scheme of Nationalised State Transport by  either  the formation of a Joint-Stock  Company  or  the running  of  the State Transport Service was  based  on  the availability of the transport services acquired by the State Government  from  the various merging States and if  such  a division was made having regard to the situation as it  thus obtained,  no  challenge  could be made against  it  on  the ground  of discrimination or the denial of equal  protection



of laws.  What was essential was that, as between the owners of  stage carriage services operating on a particular  route or  in a particular area, no discrimination should  be  made and all should be treated alike.  If each one of such owners had the same Act applied to them they could not be heard  to complain  about any discrimination.  They formed a  separate group  or class by themselves to be treated in a  particular manner having regard to the exigencies of the situation  and the Government was the best judge of the circumstances which obtained  within the particular locality which  necessitated the   application   of  one  Act  or  the  other   for   the implementation  of  the  scheme.   If  the  State  Transport Services  were not sufficient in number and could not  fully serve   the  purpose  sought  to  be  achieved,  the   State Government would well be within its rights to form a  Joint- Stock  Company as envisaged in Orissa Act XXXVI of 1947  and if such a JointStock Company could not be formed within a 39 measurable distance of time, the State Government could very well  allow the old order of things to continue under  which the owners of stage carriage services would be governed only by  the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.  It  all depended  upon the administrative convenience as to  whether the State Government could adopt one mode of  implementation of the scheme or the other and no blame could be laid at its door  if, in the circumstances of this case, it adopted  one mode of implementation in one district or part of a district and  adopted  another  mode  of  implementation  in  another district or another part of a district provided, however, as we  have stated above, all persons who were operating  on  a particular  route or routes or were located in a  particular area or disict were treated equally and without any d nation interse.   Such  zonal  or  territorial  or  geogra   phical division,  therefore,  would  not  be  violative  the  equal protection of laws.   A further argument which was addressed before us on behalf of the petitioners may be noted here and it was that  Orissa Act I of 1949 bad been applied to some of them and that  Act provided  for no compensation to be given to them as in  the case  of  those owners of stage carriage  services  to  whom Orissa  Act  XXXVI of 1947 had been applied.  That,  it  was contended, was discriminatory as between the several  owners of  stage carriage services and thus violated Article 14  of the Constitution.  This argument, however, ignores the  fact that  under Orissa Act XXXVI of 1947, the permits issued  or renewed  in favour of the owners of stage carriage  services by  the  Provincial  Transport  Authority  or  the  Regional Transport  Authority cease to be operative or are  cancelled by  the  Provincial  Government  as  the  case  may  be  and compensation  is  given  to such  permit  holders  for  such premature termination or cancellation of their permits.  The owners  of stage carriage services to whom Orissa Act  I  of 1949  is  applied stand, however, on  a  different  footing. Their  permits  continue  for  the  normal  period  and  the considerations  which are laid down in clauses (f)  and  (g) which  have been thereby added to sections 47 and 55 of  the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, would come into 40 play when these permits which have expired by lapse of  time come  to be considered for renewal on applications  made  by permit holders in that behalf.  These permits may or may not be  renewed in favour of these permit holders but  the  non- renewal  of  such  permits would not be on a  par  with  the premature termination or cancellation of the permits held by the owners of stage carriage services to whom the provisions



of  Orissa  Act  XXXVI  of  1947  were  applied.   The   two positions, therefore, are not similar and the permit holders under Orissa Act I of 1949 do not fall in the same class  or group as the permit holders under Orissa Act XXXVI of  1947. There  is  no  question, therefore,  of  any  discrimination between these two classes or groups of permit holders and it cannot be validly urged that the provisions of the  impugned Acts  in  so  far as they applied to  different  classes  or groups of permit holders are in any manner violative of  the fundamental  right  embodied  in  article  14  of  the  Con- stitution.   The argument that the provisions of the impugned Acts were designed  with  a view to oust the  private  stage  carriage services  from  business  altogether and  were  intended  to create  a  virtual  monopoly in favour  of  the  Joint-Stock Company  or  the State as the case maybe is also now  of  no avail.  Saghir Ahmad’s case(1) was particularly relied  upon by  the  petitioners  in support of  their  contentions  but article  19(6)  of  the  Constitution  as  amended  by   the Constitution  (First  Amendment)  Act,  1951,  enacts   that "Nothing in sub-clause (g) shall affect the operation of any existing  law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the  State from  making  any  law imposing, in  the  interests  of  the general  public, reasonable restrictions on the exercise  of the  right  conferred  by  the  said  sub-clause,  and,   in particular, nothing in the said sub-clause, shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it relates to, or prevent the State from making any law relating to,-- (i)............................ (ii)the carrying on by the State, or by a corporation  owned or controlled by the State, of any trade, (1) [1955] 1 S.C.R. 707. business,  industry  or service, whether to  the  exclusion, complete  or  partial,  of  citizens  or  otherwise".   This amendment  excludes  all argument in regard to  the  alleged ousting of the private-owned stage carriage services and the creation of a virtual monopoly in favour of the  Joint-Stock Company  or the State.  The Orissa Road Transport  Co.  Ltd. which  is a Joint-Stock Company formed under the  provisions of Orissa Act XXXVI of 1947 and the State Transport Services which  are  envisaged  in  Orissa  Act  I  of  1949   would, therefore,  be  able to carry on their business even  if  it resulted  in  the complete elimination of  the  privateowned stage  carriage  services  without  any  violation  of   the fundamental  right guaranteed under article 19(1)(g) of  the Constitution.    It   was  attempted  to  be  argued  on  behalf  of   the petitioners  that  the  amendment of article  19(6)  of  the Constitution  would not affect the position as  it  obtained under the impugned Acts because these Acts had been long  in operation  before  the  amendment came into  force  and  the petitioners were entitled to relief based on our decision in Saghir  Ahmad’s case, supra.  A similar argument was  sought to  be  advanced before us in Petitions Nos. 189 to  193  of 1955 -Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. The State of Madhya  Pradesh &  Another")-and  that argument was repelled by  us  in  the manner following:   "The  contention  of  the respondents before  us  is  that although the amending Act, on the authority of our  decision in Saghir Ahmad s case (supra), became on and from the  26th January  1950 void as against the citizens to the extent  of its  inconsistency with the provisions of article  19(1)(g), nevertheless,  after the 18th June 1951 when clause (6)  was amended by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951  the amending Act ceased to be inconsistent with the  fundamental



right guaranteed by article 19(1) (g) read with the  amended clause  (6) of that article, because that clause, as it  now stands,  permits  the creation by law of State  monopoly  in respect,  inter  alia, of motor transport  business  and  it became operative again (1)  [1955] 2 S.C.R. 589. 6 42 even as against the citizens................ In our judgment the  contentions  put forward by the respondents as  to  the effect  of the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951  are well-founded  and the objections urged against them  by  the petitioners are untenable and must be negatived".    It  is  hardly necessary for us to consider  the  further contention   urged  by  the  petitioners,  viz.,  that   the fundamental  right  guaranteed under  article  19(1)(f)  and under article 31(2) had been violated.  If the permits  held by them under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, were prematurely terminated  or cancelled under the provisions of Orissa  Act XXXVI  of 1947 compensation was provided by the Act  itself. If  there was no renewal of their permits on the  expiration thereof after they had run for their normal period by virtue of the provisions of Orissa Act I of 1949, no claim could be made  by  them  on the score  of  such  non-renewal  because renewal was not a matter of right.  The Provincial Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority would be  well within their rights to refuse such renewal having regard  to the  provisions  of the amended sections 47 and  55  of  the Motor  Vehicles  Act,  1939, and, if at all  there  was  any deprivation  of  their proprietary rights, it  would  be  by authority of law.   Nor need we pause to consider the last contention urged on behalf  of the petitioners that the impugned  Acts  violated the guarantee of freedom of inter-State and intrastate trade or business embodied in article 301 of the Constitution.  In the first instance, it is not a fundamental right  conferred by  Part III of the Constitution which can be enforced by  a petition  under  article 32.  Moreover, article  305  as  it stood before the amendment and the amended article 305 which came  into effect after the Constitution (Fourth  Amendment) Act,  1955, afford a complete answer to this  contention  of the petitioners.   The  result, therefore, is that there is no  substance  in any  of the contentions urged on behalf of  the  petitioners and  the  petitions  must,  therefore,  stand  dismissed  as ordered by us already. 43