JUDGMENT R.M. Sahai, J. - Existing operators and permit- holders of non- nationalised routes, of nearly entire State, have assailed validity of Clauses 1 to 3 of the notification issued on 25th Mar. 1987 under S. 43-A of Motor Vehicles Act. Relevant Clauses of the notification which are under attack are extracted below : "Whereas in exercise of the powers under sub-sec. (2) of S. 43-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Act No. IV of 1939) as inserted by the Motor Vehicles (U.P. Amendment) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. 25 of 1972), the State Government had by notification No. 3341 I/XXX-4-178-K-M-75 dated Dec. 15, 1978 issued directions to the State Transport Authority and Regional Transport Authorities in respect of consideration of applications for stage carriage permits in the State : AND WHEREAS certain difficulties were experienced in the implementation of the said directions on account of which the aforesaid notification was rescinded by notification 4099 I/XXX-4-I-K.M: 80 dated Sept. 4, 1980; Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sec. (2) of S. 43-A of the said Act read with S. 21 of the General Clauses Act 1904 (U.P. Act No. I of 1904) the Governor is pleased to direct; (1) that taking into consideration the increase of population trade, transit of goods and Government work the number of stage carriage permits on any non-nationalised route where there has been no increase in such permits for more than five years, shall be increased by 100 per cent and where there has been no increase in such permits for more than two years shall be increased by 30 percent and where there has been no increase during a period of more than one and less than two years, shall be increased by 20 per cent. (2) That the State Transport Authority and Regional Transport Authorities shall grant stage carriage permits to the various categories to the applicants in accordance with the quota shown below against each catagory; i. Members of Scheduled Caste 18% ii. Members of Sch. Tribes 2% iii. Members of Backward Class 15% iv. Ex-Army Personnel preferably Drivers Freedom Fighters or their dependants 15% v. Other persons 50%. Members of Sch. Tribes 2% iii. Members of Backward Class 15% iv. Ex-Army Personnel preferably Drivers Freedom Fighters or their dependants 15% v. Other persons 50%. Provided that in all the categories mentioned above preference shall be given to persons who were registered owners of vehicles lying title (idle) on the date of this notification as well as on the date of consideration of their applications by the State Transport Authorities or Regional Transport Authorities, excluding such operators as have been granted commensuration (consideration?) or alternative routes as a result of any nationalisation scheme : Provided further that in all the catagories, preference shall be given to operators displaced due to nationalisation of routes over other applications; (3) That it will be also ensured that not more than one permit is issued to the members of one family. Definitions (1) "Family", in relation to a person, means the person, covered, his wife or husband, as the case may be, and their minor children, (2) "Dependent of Freedom fighter" means the wife or the widow as the case will be, unmarried daughters, dependant parents, minor sons and unmarried dependant sisters." 2. Taking up cl. (1) it attempts to increase strength of vehicles on a route if there has been no increase in last few years etc. On assumption of population rise and increase in trade could it be done by State Government in purported exercise of power under S. 43-A substituted by U.P. Act 25 of 1976. Sub-sec. (1) of it reads as under; "(1) The State Government may issue such directions of a general character as it may consider necessary or expedient in the public interest in respect of any matter relating to road transport to the State Transport Authority or to any Regional Transport. Authority, and such Regional Transport Authority shall give effect to all such directions." The expression, 'such directions of a general character as it may consider necessary or expedient in the public interest in respect of any matter, relating to road transport, 'used in sub-sec. Authority, and such Regional Transport Authority shall give effect to all such directions." The expression, 'such directions of a general character as it may consider necessary or expedient in the public interest in respect of any matter, relating to road transport, 'used in sub-sec. (1) spelling out power of State Government, had come up for consideration in B. Rajagopala v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, AIR 1964 SC 1573 ..under Madras Act and it was held, "Therefore, it seems to us that on a fair and reasonable constructions of S. 43A, it ought to be held that the said section authorises the State Government to issue orders and directions of a general character only in respect of administrative matters which fall to be dealt with by the State Transport Authority or Regional Transport Authority, under the relevant provisions of the Act in their administrative capacity." 3. The amended S. 43-A by the State itself came up for consideration in Rameshwar Prasad v. State of U.P., AIR 1983 SC 383 .. The Hon'ble Court noticed the legislative history of the amendment and the mischief it attempted to remedy. It struck down the notification directing Regional Transport Authorities to grant permit to all eligible applicants as the State Government while issuing the notification ignored the legislative policy underlying U.P. Act No. 15 of 1976 and the new policy introduced by Parliament of issuing permits by amending S. 47 of the Act. The Hon'ble Court observed that the amended sub-sec. (2) of S. 43-A was clear manifestation of legislative policy against granting permit without any consideration to the needs of any particular locality or route or to the qualification of applicants. It was held, "What does S. 43-A(1) after all say? It says that the State Government may issue such direction of a general character as it may consider necessary in the public interest. What is the meaning of the term' public interest? It was held, "What does S. 43-A(1) after all say? It says that the State Government may issue such direction of a general character as it may consider necessary in the public interest. What is the meaning of the term' public interest? In the context of the Act it takes within its fold several factors such as, the maximum number of permits that may be issued on a route or in any area having regard to the needs and convenience of the travelling public, the non-availability of sufficient number of stage carriage-services in other routes or area which may be in need of running of additional services, the problems of law and order, availability of fuel, problems arising out of atmospheric pollution caused by a large number of motor vehicle operating in any route or area, the condition of roads and bridges on the routes, uneconomic running of stage carriage services - leading to elimination of small operators and employment of more capital than necessary in any sector leading to starvation of capital investment in other sectors etc. Public interest under the Act does not mean the interest of the operators or of the passengers only. We have to bear in mind that like every other economic activity the running of stage carriage service is an activity which involves use of scarce or limited productive resources. Motor Transport involves a huge capital investment on motor vehicles, training of competent drivers. and medhanics establishment of workshops, construction of safe roads and bridges, deployment of sufficient number of policemen to preserve law and order and several other matters. To say that larger the number of stage carriages in any route or area more convenient it would be to the members of the public is an over simplification of a problem with myriad facts affecting the general public." 4. Does the impugned notification satisfy the test laid down by the Hon'ble Court? The answer has to be in negative. In Rameshwar Prasad's case the notification directing grant of permits to all eligible applicants issued in 1981 was struck down. The same infirmity applies to clause 1 of the impugned notification. It cannot be resultant of objective consideration of factors which have been detailed by the Hon'ble Court to reflect public interest. The answer has to be in negative. In Rameshwar Prasad's case the notification directing grant of permits to all eligible applicants issued in 1981 was struck down. The same infirmity applies to clause 1 of the impugned notification. It cannot be resultant of objective consideration of factors which have been detailed by the Hon'ble Court to reflect public interest. Such a decision of Government is violative of S. 47 of the Act which enumerates the factors which should be taken into account by Regional Transport Authority while considering an application for a stage carriage permit. The grant of permit is a quasi-judicial function. The exercise of power is liable t be questioned by way of appeal All this is done away with and what was avoided by the Legislature has been attempted to be achieved through exercise of delegated power. In B. Rajagopala's, AIR 1964 SC 1573 . it was held that any notification issued under garb of orders or directions of a general character could not be sustained if it purported to interfere with, quasi judicial function. It was held "But what the law and provisions of law may legitimately do cannot be permitted to be done by administrative or executive orders." 5. Even otherwise the power in relation to road transport can be exercised by the authorities including Stage Government in public interest. It is on this touchstone that the orders passed by Transport Authority or the Appellate Tribunal are upheld or set aside. hat may be good or better for one region may not be the same for other. Similarly the conditions of road, the trading activity, the convenience of public etc. may differ from city, village to village city and village. The massage of time cannot by itself be a relevant factor to determine the strength. The assumptions made in the counter-affidavit and it is stated that comparative I study of availability of stage carriage buses on various routes in the State per one lac of people as against other States was much less which encouraged illegal plying. It is also stated that experience proved that various Regional transport Authorities were not in a position to assess the actual need of the travelling public for want of necessary means required or the purpose. To provide more buses to case the traffic for convenience of public is a laudable objective. It is also stated that experience proved that various Regional transport Authorities were not in a position to assess the actual need of the travelling public for want of necessary means required or the purpose. To provide more buses to case the traffic for convenience of public is a laudable objective. But the procedure for it would be within frame work of law, which cannot be thrown overboard because the machinery to check illegal plying is inefficient or ineffective. Nor can the frustration expressed due to defective reports received by Regional Transport Authorities could entitle the Government to ignore law and I assume facts without sufficient material to increase the strength not on necessity but, because of apprehension of illegal plying or better facility in other States or incapability of, Regional Transport Authorities to get roper reports. For these reasons cL (1) of the, notification is liable to be struck down. 6. Challenge to cL (2) which provides for reservation of stage carriage permits for certain class of persons mentioned in sib-section (2) of S. 43-A of U.P. Act is founded on its clash with S. 1-Gadded to S. 47 by the Central Legislation in 1978. Sub-section (2) of S. 43A of U.P. Act reads as under; "(2) The State Government shall permit at such intervals of time as it may fix, the interests affected by any notification issued under sub-sec. (1) to make representations urging the cancellation of variation of the notification on the following grounds, namely. (a) that the railways are not giving reasonable facilities or taking unfair advantage of the action of the State Government under this section; or (b) that conditions have changed since the publication of the notification; or (c) that the special needs of a particular industry or locality required to be considered afresh." It empowers State Government to fix quota for various class of persons mentioned in it. In 1978 S. 1-C added to S. 47 is extracted below; "(1-C) The Government of a State may, having regard to the extent to which persons belonging to economically weaker sections of the community have been granted stage carriage permit in that State. (a) reserve in that State such percentage of stage carriage permits, as may be prescribed for persons belonging to economically weaker sections of the community; or (b) notwithstanding anything contained in the proviso to sub-sec. (a) reserve in that State such percentage of stage carriage permits, as may be prescribed for persons belonging to economically weaker sections of the community; or (b) notwithstanding anything contained in the proviso to sub-sec. (1), give preference, in such manner as may be prescribed, to applications for stage carriage permits from such persons." Sections 1-A and 1-B deal with reservation for Scheduled Castes and Tribes. Section 1-C, however, empowers State Government to make reservations for economically backward only. What is meant by economically backward or who are those persons who can be covered. in this expression has been explained by Explanation appended to S. 1-C which reads as under; "Explanation I. In this section and in Sections 55 aid 68 a person shall be deemed to belong to economically weaker section of the community, if and only if, on the prescribed date; (a) the annual. income of such persons together with the annual income, if any, of the members, of his family;' or (b) The extent of land (whether in one class or in different classes) held by such person together with that, if any, held by the members of his family; or (c) the annual income and the extent of land aforesaid, does, or do, not exceed such limit as may be prescribed." The purpose for its enactment is mentioned in statement of objects and reasons thus, "It is also proposed to provide for reservation of certain percentage of permits for stage carriages in favour of persons (belonging to Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled tribes in the same ratio as in the case of appointments made by the direct recruitment's by a State Government to public services in that State. It is considered necessary to promote the well being of ,economically weaker sections of the community and accordingly it is proposed to empower a State Government under certain circumstances either to reserve certain percentage of permits of for Scheduled Caste, for person belonging to economically weaker sections of the community or to give preference to them in the prescribed manner. The number of permits reserved under. this (Section would not, however, exceed fifty percent of the total number of Scheduled Caste permits granted in a calendar years". Motor Vehicles Act has been enacted under Entry 35 of list III of VIIth Schedule, that is, the concurrent list. The number of permits reserved under. this (Section would not, however, exceed fifty percent of the total number of Scheduled Caste permits granted in a calendar years". Motor Vehicles Act has been enacted under Entry 35 of list III of VIIth Schedule, that is, the concurrent list. It is settled that even though both the Central and State Legislatures have power to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in list III but on principle of federal primary if the field is occupied by Central Legislature then the power of State Legislature stands excluded. And if there is conflict or the State law is repugnant to any provisions of law is made before or after the law made by State legislature it is the Central law which shall rail In Rameshwar Prasad's, 1983 All LJ 356. (supra) it was,. 'conceded by the learned Attorney General who appeared for the State Government that these amendments which were made by Parliament (see 47 and 68) would have an overriding effect on S. 43-A introduced by the State Legislature and that S. 43-A should be read subject to these later amendments made by Parliament. (Bracket is by us) Therefore, it has to bed examined if cL (b) of sub-sec. (2) of S. 43 of the State Amendment can continue to operate even after enactment of S. 1C to S. 47. S. 43A empowers State Government to issue direction to Regional Transport Authority to grant preference or to fix quota for specially deserving catagories. In other words it envisages reservation in favour of a group or class of persons. For the same purpose S. 1C was added as is clear from the statement of object and reason extracted above and the policy of reservation unfolded by S. 1(A) to 1(H) of S. 47. Is there any conflict or overlapping in the two sections? Both deal with grant of permit on preferential basis in favour of class of persons or group. The objective and purpose of both is the same. 'The difference lies in specification o preferential class by the two. The Central enactment confines it to Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes, economically backward, co-operative Societies, whereas the State Legislature extends it to backward class, freedom fighters etc. Can they be comprehended in economically backward class. Obviously not as what is meant by economically backward has been defined by the S. 47 itself. The Central enactment confines it to Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes, economically backward, co-operative Societies, whereas the State Legislature extends it to backward class, freedom fighters etc. Can they be comprehended in economically backward class. Obviously not as what is meant by economically backward has been defined by the S. 47 itself. What then is the effect of amendments effected in S. 47 on the 'specially deserving catagories in cL (b) of sub-sec. (2)' of S. 43. Does it survive? Can it co-exist with S. 47? Is the State Government still empowered to issue directions to Transport Authority to grant permit to specially deserving persons apart from those who are mentioned in S. 47. or to use the words of Gawyer C.J. in Central Provinces and Berar ;ales of Motor Spirit and Lubricants Taxation Act 1938, AIR 1939 FC 1, 'Power of the Centre and province could not have been intended to be in conflict with one another, therefore, we must read them together, and interpret or modify the language in which one is expressed by the language of the other'. Reservation or grant of permit to certain class of persons having been determined and expressly enumerated by Central legislature the State Government cannot add to it by including other persons as specially deserving class of persons. In Tika Ram Ji v. State of U.P., AIR 1956 SC 676 . the Hon'ble Court held that conflict or repugnancy in the two law that is Central and State may arise not only because of, 'inconsistency in actual terms,' or because both the stature exercise their power over the same object but also because the Central enactment 'is intended to be complete exhaustive code'. Since amendment introduced in Section 47 dealing with policy of reservation appears to be exhaustive any provision in the State enactment covering the same filed but against it becomes repugnant. In Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Bihar, AIR 1983 SC 1019 . the Hon'ble Court while elucidating the law on Article 254 observed, 'The proviso to Article 254(2) empowers the Union' Parliament to repeal or amend a repugnant State Law either directly or by itself enacting a law repugnant to the State law with respect to the same matter. In Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Bihar, AIR 1983 SC 1019 . the Hon'ble Court while elucidating the law on Article 254 observed, 'The proviso to Article 254(2) empowers the Union' Parliament to repeal or amend a repugnant State Law either directly or by itself enacting a law repugnant to the State law with respect to the same matter. Even though the 'subsequent law made by Parliament does not expressly repeal a State law, even then, the State law will become void as soon as the subsequent law of Parliament creating' repugnancy is made. A State law would be repugnent to the Union law when there is direct conflict between the two laws, such repugnancy may also arise where both laws perate in the same field and the two cannot possibly stand together : The provision of reservations in Section 43-A here fore, to the extent it is in conflict with S. 1-C has to be struck down. From the date he Central Legislature directed State Government to implement the policy of reservation for Scheduled Caste, Scheduled reservation and economically backward the provision in the State Act for reservation in favour of persons other than those mentioned in S. 1-C of S. 47 shall be deemed to have become inoperative. Consequently the 'I satisfaction directing Regional Transport authorities to make reservation for" class 'of persons mentioned in Categories III and IVI of Cl. 2 is ultra vires. 7. Coming to the last clause. its validity was assailed as it not only interfered with Article 19 but being arbitrary was liable to be struck down under Article 14. Neither of the challenges have any substance. Right guaranteed under Article 19 can be subjected to reasonable restrictions. Similarly no action can be held to be arbitrary if it is just and fair. The clause purports to achieve the social objective of equal distribution of wealth and avoids concentration amongst few. It is neither arbitrary nor encroaches upon any right of property. It is a reasonable restriction which sub serves the public good. 8. In the result these petitions succeed and are allowed in part. Clause 1 of the notification and Categories (ii) and (iv) of cl. 2 of notification dated 25th Mar. 1987 are struck down as ultra vires, Clause 3 is upheld as valid. In view of divided success parties are directed to bear their own costs.