JUDGMENT :

M.H. Beg, J.

There are twenty two appeals by Special leave together with thirteen connected special leave petitions involving a common question of law for decision before us. This question arises out of three approved schemes, which may be called the Anekal Scheme dated 15-4-1959, the Gulbarga Scheme dated 18-2-1960, and the Bangalore Scheme dated 7-6-1960, for the nationalisation under Chapter IVA of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), of transport services on certain routes lying within, the State of Mysore. But, parts of these, intra-state routes overlap inter-state routes over which private transporters were granted permits and then their renewals by the State Transport authorities to ply their vehicles. The Mysore State Road Transport Corporation objects to these permits in so far as they cover overlapping portions of intra-state routes. The common question of law which arises may be formulated as follows:

Can a permit be granted to an Inter-State Transport Operator for the whole of his route despite the fact that a part of the route overlaps a part of a notified intra-State route?

2. There can be no doubt that the Mysore State Transport Undertaking has the power to frame a scheme u/s 68C of Chapter 1VA of the Act, providing "in the public interest that road transport services in general or any particular class of such service in relation to area or route or portion thereof should be run and operated by the State Transport Undertaking, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, of other persons or otherwise". This power includes the power to exclude even inter-state motor operators altogether from a part of any notified route. (See : Nilkanth Prasad and Others Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 1135, Standard Motor Union Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala & Ors. [1969](1) S.C.R. 464; S. Abdul Khader Saheb Vs. The Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore and Others, AIR 1973 SC 534. The Transport authorities have no power to deviate from or modify the terms of approved schemes which have the force of law. They can issue or otherwise deal with permits only in accordance with the provisions of the schemes which may be either partial or total exclusion of private operators from notified routes. We have to determine whether the schemes before us are of partial or total exclusion.

3. Section 68C requires, as a condition precedent to any exclusion of private operators under a scheme of nationalisation from "any area or route or portion thereof", that the scheme should give "particulars of the nature of services proposed to be rendered, the area or route proposed to be covered and such other particulars respecting thereto as may be prescribed". Each scheme has to be published in the official Gazette and also "in such manner as the State Govt. may direct". A scheme finally emerges, after opportunities given u/s 68D of the Act for objections by persons interested in providing transport facilities as well as by local and police authorities within the area or upon the routes proposed to be covered by a scheme, as an approved scheme in which the original proposals may or may not have been modified. Each scheme so approved can be either cancelled or modified by the State Transport Undertaking u/s 68E of the Act in accordance with the procedure laid down by Sections 68C and 68D of the Act.

4. The power of the State Transport Undertaking to prohibit the use of any portion of a route by Inter-state operators has not been questioned before us. Nevertheless, it may be pertinent to point out that this Court thus indicated in Saghir Ahmad Vs. The State of U.P. and Others, AIR 1954 SC 728, the nature of the right of the public to use public roads (at page 717) :

But the right of the public to use motor vehicles on the public road cannot, in any sense, be regarded as a right created by the Motor Vehicles Act. The right exists anterior to any legislation on this subject as an incident of public rights over a h