BALWANT SINGH Vs. MOOL CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against an order of a learned single judge of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) . The facts speak for themselves and the appeal must succeed.

(2.) The Saharanpur-Delhi route is an inter-State route the major portion of which lies in the State of Uttar Pradesh. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 47 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, hereinafter called the "Act", the Transport Authority fixed the strength of operators who could ply stage carriages on the aforesaid route at 100. The appellants, who are 15 in number, were among those operators to whom permits had been issued in December 1957 and they were plying their vehicles since that date. They were initially granted permits for a period of three years but their permits were renewed subsequently at successive intervals. In October 1959 a notification was issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh under Section 68-D (3) of the Act, declaring the Delhi-Saharanpur route as a notified route to the total exclusion of all private operators including the appellants. The notification further provided that the U. P. Government Roadways would have a monopoly of plying buses on the said route. Although 100 operators were affected by the said notification only 50 out of them including the appellants challenged the validity of the said notification by means of writ petitions in the Allahabad High Court. These petitions were allowed in October 1961 and the High Court directed the State of Uttar Pradesh not to enforce the scheme against the 50 writ petitioners. The State Government was, however, free to enforce the scheme against the remaining operators who had not preferred writ petitions. The result, therefore, was that the operators who had succeeded in the writ petitions, including the appellants, and the U. P. Government Roadways jointly operated the vehicles on the Delhi-Saharanpur route.

(3.) In May 1968 the Regional Transport Authority rejected the applications of the appellants for renewal of the permits. The applications of the present respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were rejected on the ground that the route was a notified route and no permit could be granted to them. These respondents had applied for fresh permits being granted to them. The appellants and respondents 3 and 4 preferred appeals to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The appellants succeeded before the Tribunal and their permits were renewed upto April 28, 1972. The appeals of respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were dismissed. In May 1969 respondents Nos. 1 to 4 filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the decision of the Appellate Tribunal. Apart from other respondents the appellants were also joined as respondents in the writ petition. The writ petition was admitted by the Division Bench sitting at Lucknow on May 14, 1969 and the following order was made, "Admit, issue notice." The stay petition which had also been filed was directed to be put up for orders on the next day. On May 15, l969 the Bench made the following order: