RAI BAHADUR LAL Vs. GOVT OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SIX writ petitions were filed by various petitioners, who were operators on five stage carriage routes, namely, Allahabad-Shankergarh, Allahabad-Banda. Allahabad-Chitrakoot, Rajapur-Sitapur and Sitapur- Manikpur. These writ petitions were dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by_a common judgment. The petitioners in live of the writ petitions have filed these special appeals against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 19th Janu ary. 1971.

(2.) THE appellants challenged the nationalisation of the five stage carriage routes mentioned above. On September 8. 1961. a notification under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was published in the U. P. Gazette dated September 16, 1961 and a scheme was proposed for the nationalisation of the five routes men tioned above. The appellants and some others filed objections in the year 1961. Mr. S. K. Bhargava, Deputy Legal Re membrancer Uttar Pradesh Government, Lucknow, respondent No. 2. was appoint ed the Hearing Authority. The objec tions were dismissed by Mr. Bhargava and the scheme was finally approved and published in the U. P. Gazette dated August 29. 1970. Thereafter a notifica tion under Section 68-F (2) of the Act was published on September 12. 1970 cancelling the permits of the petitioners. By means of the writ petitions, the peti tioners challenged the order of the Hear ing Authority dated September 4. 1968, the publication of the final scheme on August 29, 1970 and the notification dated September 12, 1970 cancelling the per mits of the operators.

(3.) THE first argument, i. e. with regard to the violation of the principles of natural justice, had four limbs. It was argued that opportunity to produce witnesses was denied to the petitioners. The second limb of the argument was that the petitioners were denied an op portunity to cross-examine the witnesses produced by the State Transport Under taking. Thirdly it was urged that the petitioners were not permitted to put cer tain questions to their own witnesses. Fourthly, it was contended that the peti tioners were not given an opportunity of addressing arguments before the Hearing Authority.