Untwalia, J. - (1.) The facts of this appeal by special leave are very much similar and the points involved are almost identical to those in the case of Sharif Ahmad v. Regional Transport Authority, Meerut, (1978) 1 SCC 1. The Allahabad High Court, in the order under challeng in this appeal, has followed its earlier decision which was upset by this Court in the case aforesaid. We could have disposed of this appeal by a short order saying that it is covered by the earlier decision of this Corut, but some differences in the facts of the two cases led Mr. Yogeshwar Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent operators to advance a strenuous argument to oppose the following of the above course. But on scrutiny, we find that there is no distinction between the two cases on the main point. For the reasons stated hereinafter there has to be made a difference in the operative portion of the order of this Court. We need not state all the facts, the entire history of the litigation, and all the points decided in the earlier case. We shall merely proceed to mention in this judgment facts which are somewhat different and enabled the respondents to endeavour to make out some points of distinction justifiably or unjustifiably.
(2.) The route in question is Firozabad-Etah via Pharia-Mustafabad-Phaptu. The Regional Transport Authority. Agra refused to grant permits to the appellants for plying their stage-carriages on this route by its order dated the 25th October, 1969 on the ground that a part of the route was not motorable. In appeal from the said order the Transport Appellate Authority held on the 16th of January, 1971 that it was a motorable route and directed the Regional Transport Authority to consider the applications of the appellants on merits. Respondent No.3 - one of the existing operators filed Writ Petition No. 501 of 1971 in the High Court challenging the Appellate Order dated the 16th January 1971. In this Writ Petition, the High Court made a stay order on the 20th of May, 1971 permitting the Regional Transport Authority to consider the applications for the grant of the permits on the route and grant them, if on merits, the applications were fit to be allowed. But the permit so granted should not be issued until further orders of the High Court. Then came the insertion of Section 43-A in the Motor Vehicles Act by an amendment of the U. P. Legislature and the general direction of the Government on the 30th of March, 1972, which are all referred to in the judgment of this Court in Shariff Ahmad"s case, (supra).
(3.) On the 1st of May, 1973 the Regional Transport Authority sanctioned or granted the permits to all the appellants by an order made in the following terms: "Permits are sanctioned to these applicants for three years on usual conditions in public interest subject to the order of the High Court in the pending writ petition in which stay order is at present operating to the effect that although permits can be sanctioned but they will not be issued. Vehicles will have to be put up on the route and affidavits that there has been no conviction under the I. P. C. during the last five years will have to be filed in each case within one month of the receipt of the High Court order in office in case the stay order is vacated and the writ is disallowed." The operator respondent challenged the said order of the Regional Transport Authority by filing Writ Petition No. 4158 of 1973 in the High Court. In this writ petition also an interim order of stay was made by the High Court on the 18th of July, 1973 in the following terms:- "Until further orders, no new permit shall be issued on Firozabad-Etah via Phaphotu route in pursuance of U. P. Act No. 25 of 1972 or any notification issued thereunder. We further direct that if any permit has been granted under the Amending Act to respondents Nos. 5 to 15, it shall not be issued to them until further orders." Writ Petition No. 4158 of 1973 was dismissed by the High Court on the 7th of February, 1975 and with the dismissal of the said writ petition came to an end the interim order made by the High Court therein on the 18th July, 1973. But the interim order made in writ petition No. 501 of 1971 on 20-5-1971 continued. It was formally vacated on the 29th September, 1975 - five days after the issuance of the notification making a change in the law on the 24th September, 1975, a copious reference to which has been made in Sharif Ahmad"s case (supra). According to the appellants in spite of the fact that they had complied with the conditions imposed by the Regional Transport Authority in its order dated 1-5-1973 and thus had become entitled to the issuance of the permits which had already been sanctioned or granted, the said Authority did not issue permits to them. They, therefore, moved the High Court by a learned single Judge and his decision was upheld in Letters Patent Appeal by a Division Bench of the High Court. The High Court thought that the position in the present case is precisely the same as in the other. The Bench, therefore, upheld the order of the single Judge on that account.;