ADARSH TRAVELS BUS SERVICE & ANR versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

Citation: [1985] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 661 · Decided: 17-10-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: O. CHINNAPPA REDDY · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

661 
AllARSH TRAVELS BUS SERVICE & ANR, 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 
OCTOBER 17, 1985 
[O. CHINNAPPA REDDY, E.S. VENKATARAMIAH, V.B. ERADI, R.B. MISRA 
AND V. KHALID, JJ.j 
Motor Vehicles Act 1939: 
Sections 68B, 
68C 
& 68D -
Nationalised or notified route -
Right of private operator to 
operate on co=n. over-lapping sector - Imposition of "Corridor 
restrictions" - Permissibility of. 
Scheme -
Preparation and publishing of -
Approving or · 
modifying of - Interest of travelling public -. Protection of -
Necessity. 
Words & Phrases: "route" -
Meaning of -
Section 2(28A) 
Motor Vehicles Act 1939. 
The appellants in the appeals were holders of stage 
carriage permits over certain intra-state routes as well as 
inter-state routes. Parts of the routes on which they were plying 
their stage carriages were notified under Chapter IVA of the 
Motor Vehicles Act 1939. 
They contended that they may be 
permitted to ply their stage carriages over the entire route by 
imposing "corridor restrictions" i.e. not picking up or setting 
down any passengers at any point on the nationalised part of the 
routes. 
In the appeals to this court the question was: where a 
route is nationalised under Chapter IVA of the Motor Vehicles Act 
1939 whether a private operator with a permit to ply a stage 
carriage over another route but which has a cOlllllOn over-lapping 
sector with the nationalised route can ply his vehicle over that 
part of the over-lapping coDIDOn sector if he does not pick up or 
set down passengers on the over-lapping part of the route. 
On behslf of the appellants, it was contended that a 
"route" according to the definition in section 2(28A) of the 
Motor Vehicles Act 1939 meant a line drawn between two terminii 
and if the portion of it had been nationalised, it would have no 
effect whatsoever on the permits to ply stage carriages on the 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
ll 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
662 
SIJPRJ;ME COURT REPORTS 
[1985] SUPP.3 s.c.R. 
route, and that the complete exclusion of private operators from 
the COllllllOn sector would be violative of Article 14 and alao ultra 
vires section 68-D of the Act. It was further conteuded that the 
provisions of Chapter IV and Chapter IVA of the Act lllWlt be 
construed in such a manner as to allow permit holders to ply 
their stage carriages notwithatanding that parts of their route 
are also parts of notified routes. 
Dismissing the appeals and special leave petitions, 
llEIJl :l(a) None of the schemes contains any saving .clause 
in favour of operators plying or wanting to ply stage carriages 
on COlllllOn sec tore. However, there ia invariably a clause in the 
scheme to the effect that no person other than the State 
Government 
Undertaking will 
be 
permitted to provide road 
transport services on the routes specified in the scheme. In view 
of this provision in the scheme there ia a total prohibition of 
private operators from plying stage carriages on the uaole or 
part of the notified routes, The appellants cannot therefore 
contend thet they can ply their vehicles on the notified routea 
or part of the notified routes. [678 G - 679 A] 
(b) When preparing and publishing the scheme under section 
68-C and approving or modifying the scheme under aection 68-D 
care must be taken to protect, aa far as posaible, the interest 
of the travelling public who could in the past travel from one 
point to another without having to change from one service to 
another enroute. This can always be done by appropriate clauses 
exeniptiDg operators already having permits over the ccamon sector 
from the scheme 
and by 
incorporating appropriate conditional 
clauses in the scheme to enable them to ply their vabiclea over 
cOllEOll sectors without pick.illjl up or setting dOIJll paaaengera on 
the COlllDOn sectors. If such a course is not feasible the State 
Legislature may intervene and provide some other alternative, 
[667 F-HJ 
2, The right of the 1118111bere of the public to paaa and 
re-pass over a highway including the right to use motor vehicles 
on the public road meted prior to the enactment of the Motor 
Vehicles Act, 1939 and Willi not its creation. 1he State could 
control and regulate the right for the purpose of enauri11& the 
safety, peace and good health of the public. As an incident of 
this right of paaaage over a highway, a lllelllber of the public was 
entitled to ply motor vehicles for pleasure or pastime or for the 
purpose of trade and busine1• subject to permiaaible contr

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.