V. N. Ebare, J.- - (1.) THIS petition and the above connected writ petition raise common question of facts and law and are, therefore being disposed of by a common judgment.
(2.) FOR purposes of Motor Vehicles Act, 19*8 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) there is a route know as Bulandshahr-Aurangabad-Lakbauti-Khan- pur-Amarpur-Dhandhiani and allied routes (hereinafter referred to as the route). The route lies within the jurisdiction of Regional transport authority, Meerut. The Regional Transport Authority invited applications for grant of permanent stage carriage permit on the route. The petitioners of these writ petitions in response to said invitation submitted applications for grant of permanent stage carriage permits on the route. The Regional Transport Authority in its meeting held on 22-9-1989 granted permits to the petitioners Repon- dent no. 2 who is an existing operator of the route challenged the resolution dated 22-9-1989 by filing revision before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, U. P. Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal). The Tribunal by its order dated 25-5-1990 allowed the revision on the ground that the notification published on 22-9-1989 reconstituted the Regional Transport Authority, Meerut by revoking the earlier notification and, therefore, the earlier Regional Transport Authority had no jurisdiction to consider the applications and grant any permit. It is aeainst this order that the petitioners have come up before this court by means of these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. Learned counsel for the petioners urged that the notification published in the extra ordinary official gazette of 22-9-1989 did not come into effect on the said date as it was not available in the officer of the Authority at Meerut when the Regional Transport Authority granted permit to the petitioners. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the notification dated 22-9-1989 has come into effect on the date when it was published i.e. 22-9-1989, and, therefore, the Regional Transport Anthority which was constituted in pursuance of the earlier notification had no authority to grant permit and the view taken by the Tribunal is perfectly in accordance with law. Section 68 of the Act provides that the State Government shall, by notification in the official gazette, constitute for the State a State Transport Authority to exercise and discbarge the powers and fun tions specified in subsection 13), and shall in like manner constitute Regional Transport Authorities to exercise and discharge throughout such areas as may be specified in the notification, in respect of each Regional Transport Authority: the powers and functions conferred by or under this chapter on such Autnorities; sub-Sec. (2) of seoion 68 further provides that a Regional Transport Authority shall consist of a chairman and such other persons (whether officials or not), not being more than two, as the State Government may think fit to appoint, the State Government in exercise of its powers conferred under section 68 of the Act constituted Regional Transport Authoritity by notification dated 27-7-1989. The Regional Transport Authority, Meerut was reconstituted by notification dated 22-9-1989 published in the U. P. Extra Ordinary Gazette. The notification published in U. P. Gazette Extra Ordinary on 22-9-1989 shows that in exercise of powers under sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 68 of the Act read with section 21 of General clauses Act and rule 54 of U. P. Motor Vehicle rules read with Clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 2(7 of the said Act of 1988 in supersession of Government notification dated 27-7- 1989 Governor was pleased to constitute with immediate effect the Regional Transport Authorities as mentioned in column 2 of schedule annexed to the notification for the regions named against each in column 4 of that schedule to exercise and discharge the powers and functions throughout the areas men- toned in column 5 of the said schedule vide si. no. 4 of the Schedule appended to the said notification the Regional Transport Authority, Meerut was constituted and in column 3 thereof it is mentioned as below : 1. Commissioner, Meerat Division, Meerut- Chairman 2. Deputy Transport Commissioner, Meerut zone, Meerut- Member It is admitted between the parties that the order granting permit was passed by the Commissioner of Meerut Division in his capacity as Chairman of the Regional Transport Authority as per constitution of the Regional Transport Authority vide notification dated 27-7-1989 and the Deputy Transport Commissioner, Meerut Zone did not participate in the said meeting. The first question that requires determination is as to whether the notification dated 22-9- 1989 reconstituting Regional Transport Authority, Meerut came into effect in Jaw on the same day or when it became available in the office of the authority at Meerut.
(3.) IN State of Maharastra v. Miyer Hans George, AIR 1965 SC 722, a question arose whether the respondent therein could He convicted for importing gold in INdia contrary to the provisions of Foreign Exchange regulation Act 1947 in disregard of a notification issued by Reserve Bank of INdia in official Gazette. The Reserve Bank of INdia in this case issued a notification published in official Gazette on 24-11-1962 in supersession to earlier notification The act of the respondent in this case in importing gold in this country was although in accordance with the earlier notification dated 25-8- 1948 but was in breach of notification published on 24-11-1962. The respondent in this case has left Zurich on 27-11-1962 and it was argued that he could not have had the knowledge of the notification of the Reserve Bank of INdia which was published in the Gazette on 24-11-1962 in INdia. INspite of the fact that section 8 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 did not provide for the manner in which the Reserve Bank of INdia would provide for general or special permission, by reason of the Gazette notification it has held that the respondent must be attributed with the knowledge of the contents thereof in the eye of law. A Full Bench of this court in case of Avdesh Singh v Bikarama Ahir, AIR. 1975 AIId. 324. held that the publication of statement in Official Gazette amounts in law as effective publication relying on decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George (supra). IN the case of D. Chemchiah v. Commissioner of Police, Madras. AIR 1948 Madras 288, it was held that the statute comes info effect at the first moment of the dav on which it becomes law. IN M/s Haji Lal Mohd, Biri Works v, State of U. P. AIR 1973 SC 2226, it was held that the Act came into force on the day it was published in the Official Gazette and not when it received the President's assent. The decision referred to above lav down without ambiguity thai a notification comes into effect on the date when it is published. The publication of notification is taken has effective publication and not the knowledge or availability of the said Gazette Notification. IN view of this it must be held that the grant of permit by the Regional Transport Authority was in the teeth of the notification dated 22-9-1989 which constituted afresh Regional Transport Authority, Meerut. Learned counsel for the petitioners strongly relied upon a decision of this court in the case of U.S. Awasthi v. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 107 ITR 796. In this, it appears that attention of this court was not drawn to the judgment of Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George and Full Bench decision of this court in Avdesh Singh v. Bikarma Ahir (supra) and, therefore, it is of no help to the petitioners.;