P. A. Sharma, J. - (1.) ALL these writ petitions involve common questions of law and facts and as such are being decided by a common judgment. Writ petition no. 15129 of 1990, Padam Chand Sharma v. State of U. P. and others has been made leading case with the consent of the learned counsel for both the parties. Necessary facts of the leading case will be given hereinafter for deeding these writ petitions.
(2.) QUESTION involved in these writ petitions is as to what is the date of publication of official Gazette. Is tit the date which the Gazette bears or the date on which it is printed or the date on which it is made available to the public ? A draft scheme under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) proposing to nationalise 49 routes of Agra and Meerut Regions including the routes of the petitioners, was published in the U. P. Gazette dated June 23, 1989, petitioners filed objections within time against the said scheme before the authority, appointed by the State Government, to hear the objections against the scheme. The Hearing Authority fixed 2-2-1990 as the date for consideration of the objections. On the above date the Hearing Authority adjourned the case to 26-2-1990, as it found that the notices have not been published. On 26-2-1990 the Authority passed an order holding that the notice has been bublished in the official Gazette dated 10-2-1990 and accordingly fixed 5-3-1990 to 10-3-1990 for consideration of the objection of the operators of the various routes, mentioned in the draft scheme. It has been averred in the writ petition by the petitioners that no notice as contemplated by sub-Rule (3) of Rule 6 was served on them either by registered post or by publication in the official Gazette and they have no knowledge about the fixation of the aforesaid dates for consideration of their objections and they came to know about the above dates only from the operators of Aligarh and thereafter engaged Sri T. N Nigam, Advocate, who, made an application before the Hearing Authority. The Hearing Authority by its order dated 6-3-1990 rejected the above application and closed the evidence. It is against this order of the Hearing Authority that these writ petitions have been filed. Section 68-D of the Act, which is analogous to Section 100 of the new Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, empowered the Government to approve or modify the draft scheme after considering the objections and after giving an opportunity of being heard to the objectors and the corporation. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 68-1 of the Act the Government of U. P. has framed rules known as U. P. State Road Transport Services (Development) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Rule), for purposes of hearing and finalising the draft schema. Rule 6, which provides for service of notices on the objectors and the corporation so far as it is relevant, is reproduced below : "6. Consideration and Disposal of objections Section 68-1 (2) (c) (1) The objections so received shall be considered and disposed of by such officer of the State Government as may be authorised in this behalf by the Governor under clause (1) of Article 154 of the Constitution or under the rules made by him in pursuance of clause (3) of Article 166 of the Constitution. (2) Such officer shall fix the date, lime and place for the hearing the objections and issue notices thereof to the objectors, and the representative of the corporation, calling upon them to appear before him in person or through a duly authorised agent or counsel and to produce their oral and documentary evidence on the date fixed for hearing. (3) The notices under Sub-Rule (2) shall be served by : (a) publishing at least 10 days before the date fixed for hearing a general notice in the official gazette giving date, time and place fixed for hearing of objections, and (b) sending notices by registered post to the objector at the address as shown in the memorandum of objection and to the corporation : Provided that where a general notice has been published as aforesaid, the service thereof shall, notwithstanding anything contained in clause (b) be deemed to have been duly affected on the objector and the corporation. (4) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (7) the objector and the corporation shall produce evidence and witnesses necessary and relevant to the enquiry on the date fixed for hearing. (5) No objector shall be entitled to be heard unless the objections are made in accordance with the provisions of these rules."
(3.) BY Rule 6 the Hearing Authority is required to fix date, time and place for hearing the objections and to issue notice there of to both the objectors and the corporation In view of sub- Rule (3) the notices are required to be served on the objectors both by publishing a general notice in the official Gazette and by sending it by registered post at their addresses as shown in the memorandum of objections. BY virtue of proviso appended to sub-Rule (3) of the said Rule, on the publication of the general notice in the manner as aforesaid the service shall be deemed to have been duly affected on the objectors and the corporation. Service of notice as required by Rule 6, is a condition precedent for exercising the power of deciding the objections by the Hearing Authority. Unless the notice has been served on the objectors in the manner laid down by Rule 6 the Authority cannot proceed with the hearing of the objections. As mentioned herein before, the Hearing Authority fixed 2-2-1990 as the first date for consideration of the objections, but the case was adjourned on the said date for 26-2-1990 on the ground that notices have not been published. It was on 26-2- 1990 that the Hearing Authority passed an order holding that the notices have been published in U. P. Gazette dated 10-2-1990. The petitioners hav,e stated in the writ petitions that the notice was not published in the U. P. Gazette dated 10-2-1990, In support of their contentions they have filed a letter dated March 3, 1990, written by Director, Government press, U. P., Allahabad, in reply to the query by an operator of another route, in which it has been stated that U. P. Gazette dated January 27, 1990 has been given on 28-2-1990 to R M.S. for despatch and steps are being taken to make Gazette dated 3-2-1990 also available for despatch. It is thus apparent that till 3-3 1990 the U. P. Gazette dated 10 2-1990 in which the general notice fixing 26-2-1990 was published, had not seen the light of the day and was not made available to the public. It is also clear that till date on which the impugned order was passed on 6-3-1990 the aforesaid Gazette dated 10-2-1990 was not made available for public sale or for despatch to the subscribers.;