SARASWATI DEVI Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment dated the 8th August, 1980 of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissing a petition instituted by the 18 appellants under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in which the reliefs prayed for were-

(2.) The notification dated the 21st January, 1961 declared that the State Government was of the opinion that "for the purpose of providing an efficient, adequate, economical and properly co-ordinated road transport service, it is necessary in the public interest that road transport services on the routes mentioned at Item No. 2 of the annexed schemes should be run and operated by the State transport undertaking to the complete exclusion of other persons" and the impugned scheme was being published on that account under Section 68C of the Act read with Rule 4 (1) of the Uttar Pradesh State Transport Services (Development) Rules, 1958 (for short, the Rules). The impugned scheme envisaged the plying of buses on the route Gorakhpur-Khajni Gola via Dhuriapur and Malhanpur exclusively by the State Transport Undertaking (hereinafter described as the S.T.U.) and invited all persons whose interest was affected by it to file objections thereto within 30 days of its publication in the Official Gazette. The impugned scheme was later on modified by different notifications and three allied routes were brought within its purview. Supplementary objections to the scheme as amended were put forward by persons interested. Shri S. K. Bhargava, Deputy Secretary (Judicial) to the U. P. Government rejected all the objections and approved the scheme through the impugned order, in pursuance of which the 1970 notification was published in the Government Gazette.

(3.) On behalf of the 18 appellants (out of whom appellants Nos. 1 to 17 are transport operators who were plying their buses on the routes covered by the impugned scheme while appellant No. 18 is the Motor Operators' Association, Gorakhpur) the following grounds were put forward before the High Court in support of the prayers made: