G.C. Mathur, J. - (1.) THE following question has been referred for opinion to this Full Bench: Whether, within the meaning of Section 19(2)(a) of the U.P. Act IX of 1955, 'operating' presupposes running or plying the vehicles in accordance with law and with a right to do so?
(2.) A Division Bench of this Court, in Jagat Nath Wahal v. Government of State of U.P. Sp. A. No. 25 of 1970 D/ - April 9, 1971, held that the word 'operating' in Section 19(2)(a) of the U.P. Road Transport Services (Development) Act, 1955 must be read to mean validly operating and not invalidly and illegally operating. The correctness of this view was doubted in some cases and it is on that account that this reference has been made to this Full Bench. In order to answer the question referred, it is necessary to notice the legislative history and the circumstances in which the provision came to be enacted. Some time before 1950 the Govt. of U.P. started running its own stage carriages on certain routes under executive instructions. Under these instructions, the transport authorities, under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, were directed not to grant permanent permits or renewals to private operators on routes on which the Government wanted to run its stage carriages. The plying of vehicles by the Government in this manner, the nationalization of certain routes by executive orders and the exclusion of private operators from such routes was challenged in this Court in a number of writ petitions. These writ petitions were allowed by a Full Bench of this Court by judgment reported in Moti Lal v. State of U.P., AIR 1951 All 251. The Full Bench held that in the exercise of its executive power the State Government could enter into the business of plying stage carriages even when there was no legislation empowering it to do so, but that it could not nationalise any route so as to exclude private operators therefrom. It was further held that Government could not ply its stage carriages without obtaining permits under the Motor Vehicles Act. In the result writs of mandamus were issued to the R.T.A. to consider on merits the applications of private operators for permits and renewals, even on routes on which the Govt. had started plying its stage carriages.
(3.) THEREUPON the U.P. Legislature enacted the U.P. State Road Transport Act, 1950 (U.P. Act No. II of 1951). This Act came into force on February 10, 1951. Section 3 empowered the State Govt. to declare by notification that the Road Transport Services on any particular route shall be operated by the State Government exclusively or by it in conjunction with Railways or partly by it and partly by others. Section 4 provided for the framing and publication of a scheme in pursuance of the declaration under Section 3. Sections 5, 6 and 7 provided for the filing of objections to the Scheme, for the disposal of the objections and for the publication of the final scheme. Section 13, which is a validating section, reads thus: (Their Lordships then quoted Section 13(1)(a)(i)(ii)(b) and (2) and proceeded on to observe:) In accordance with the provisions of Section 13(1)(b) a notification was published on February 12, 1951, which specified a number of routes including the Meerut -Delhi route, with which this Special Appeal is concerned. The result of this notification was that the routes mentioned in the notification were deemed to be routes specified in a notification under Section 3 and in respect of which schemes were deemed to have been published under Sections 4 and 5 and to have been duly confirmed. The constitutional validity of Act II of 1951 and of the notification issued thereunder was challenged in a large number of writ petitions before the Supreme Court. By its judgment reported in Saghir Ahmad v. State of U.P. : AIR 1954 SC 728, the Supreme Court held that the Act violated Articles 19(1)(g) and 31(1) of the Constitution and was, therefore, invalid. The Supreme Court delivered its judgment on October 13, 1954.;