Chinnappa Reddy, J. - (1.) These appeals have been placed before us primarily to resolve a conflict between Ram Sanehi Singh v. Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, (1971) 3 SCC 797, Mysore State Road Transport Corpn. v. Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal, (1975) 1 SCR 493 and Mysore State Road Transport Corporation v. Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal, (1975) 1 SCR 615. The question for our consideration, is, where a route is nationalised under Chapter IVA of the Motor Vehicles Act, whether a private operator with a permit to ply a stage carriage over another route but which has a common overlapping sector with the nationalised route can ply his vehicle over that part of the overlapping common sector if he does not pick up or drop passengers on the overlapping part of the route The answer to the question really turns on the terms of the scheme rather than on the provisions of the statute, as we shall presently show.
(2.) We will mention here the facts of a few cases which are illustrative of the question raised. In Civil Appeal No. 684 of 1981, the appellants hold a stage carriage permit over the route Meerut to Ambala via Bamanheri, Deoband, Gagalheri and Saharanpur. One part of the route, namely, Meerut to Bamanheri is also part of a nationalised route Meerut-Bamanheri-Hardwar while yet another part of the route, namely, Gagalheri to Saharanpur is part of another nationalised route Hardwar-Dehradun-Gagalheri-Saharanpur. The question has arisen whether the petitioners may be allowed to ply their stage carriage over the whole of the route Meerut-Bamanheri-Deoband-Gagalheri-Saharanpur- Ambala provided that they observe 'corridor restrictions', that is, provided they do not pick up or set down any passengers between Meerut and Bamanheri and between Gagalheri and Saharanpur. In Civil Appeals Nos. 1909 and 1910 of 1981, the appellants were applicants for the grant of stage carriage permits over the route Etah-Dhumari-Sidhupur-Patiyali. The route Etah-Dhumari-Daryaganj-Qaimganj had already been notified under Chapter IVA of the Motor Vehicles Act. As part of the route over which the appellants applied for permits to ply stage carriages had already been notified under Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, their applications for the-grant of permits were rejected. They claimed that they should have been granted permits by imposing "corridor restrictions" over that part of the route which had been notified. In Civil Appeal No. 1021 of 1976, the appellant held a permit for plying a stage carriage over the inter-State route Allahabad to Rewa. The permit is said to have been granted in favour of another individual, originally under an interState agreement between the State of Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh. On the failure of the original permit-holder to obtain a renewal of the permit he lost the permit and it was thereafter granted to the appellant. Part of the route between Allahabad and Chakghat via Panari was nationalised by the Uttar Pradesh Government. The whole of the route Rewa to Allahabad was nationalised by the Madhya Pradesh Government with the concurrence of the Central Government, but with exemptions in favour of the existing operators plying under inter-State agreements, though the matter has not been made very clear to us. The appellant claims that notwithstanding and nationalisation of the route from Allahabad to Chakghat, he is entitled to ply that stage carriage over that part of the route also by observing "corridor restrictions". In Civil Appeal No. 2921 of 1981, the State of Rajasthan has nationalised part of an inter-State route and the complaint is that the appellant should have been permitted to ply his stage carriage over the entire route with "corridor restrictions" over the nationalised part of the route. In Civil Appeals Nos. 164-166 of 1982, the complaint is that a very insignificant portion of the route on which the appellants hold stage carriage permits is included in a nationalised route and, therefore, the scheme should have exempted the operation of private stage carriages over the, common sector.
(3.) The right of the members of the public to pass and re-pass over a highway including the right to use motor vehicles on the public road existed prior to the enactment of the Motor Vehicles Act and was not its creation. The State could control and regulate the right for the purpose of ensuring the safety, peace and good health of the public. As an incident of his right of passage over a highway, a member of the public was entitled to ply motor vehicles for pleasure or pastime or for the purpose of trade and business, subject, of course, to permissible control and regulation by the State, Saghir Ahmed v. State of U. P. (1955) 1 SCR 707. Under Article 19(6)(ii) of the Constitution, the State can make a law relating to the carrying on by the State or by a Corporation, owned or controlled by the State of any particular business, industry or service whether to the exclusion, complete-or partial, of citizens or otherwise. The law could provide for carrying on a service to the total exclusion of all the citizens; it may exclude some of the citizens only; it may do business in the entire State or a portion of the State, in a specified route or part thereof. The word 'service' has been construed to be wide enough to take in not only the general motor service, but also the species of motor service. There are no limitations on the State's power to make laws, conferring monopoly on it in respect of an area, and person or persons to be excluded Kondala Rao v. A. P. State Road Transport Corpn., AIR 1961 SC 82. All this is now well established by the various decisions of this Court.;