Yashoda Nandan, J. - (1.) THE ques tions arising for decision in this appeal are as to whether it is incumbent on the State. Government to frame rules under Section 68-1 (2) (cc) of the Motor Vehicles Act - hereinafter referred to as the Act - prescrib ing the form in which an application for a permit under Section 68-F (1) of the Act must be made and further as to whether in the absence of such rules the Regional Transport Authority or the State Transport Authority as the case might be is powerless to grant a permit to a State Transport Undertaking under that provision of the Act.
(2.) THE relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that the Aligarh Atrauli-Ram-ghat route was notified for provision of Road Transport Service exclusively by the appellant U. P. State Road Transport Corporation, Lucknow-hereinafter referred to as the Cor poration. The Corporation is a State Trans port Undertaking within the meaning of Section 68-A (b) of the Act. The legality of the scheme was challenged by means of writ peti tions which were dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. Special Appeals were filed against the dismissal of the writ petitions and are still pending. In the Spe cial Appeals, interim orders were passed res training the respondents to the special ap peals from preventing the transport opera tors, who are Appellants therein, from plying their vehicles on the route notified. The interim orders are still effective and conse quently the existing transport operators on the route in question are at present plying their vehicles. The interim orders, referred to above, were passed on the 27th July, 1971. Since the operation of the scheme was not stayed, the appellant-Corporation filed an application for permits in pursuance- of the scheme under Section 68-F (1) of the Act for the route in question on the 11th May, 1972. The application was made in the form prescribed by Rule 50 in exercise of powers under Section 68 which occurs in Chapter IV of the Act. On the 21st Novem ber, 1972 on the basis of the application made, the State Transport Authority grant ed permits to the appellant- Corporation under Section 68-F (1) of the Act. Respon dent No. 3, who was one of the transport operators providing transport service on the route preferred a revision against the order of S respondent No. 2 which was allowed. The state Transport Appellate (Tribunal), U. P. took the view that the application on the basis of which permits to the appellant had been granted was in the form prescribed by Rule 50 (a) of the U. P. Motor Vehicles Rules which was a form only for an ap plication for a permit under Chapter IV and not for a permit under Chapter IV-A of the Act. The view was taken that after the amendment of Sections 68-F (1) and 68-1 by Act No. 56 of 1969, it was obligatory for the State Government to frame a rule under Section 68-1 (2) (cc) prescribing the form for applications for permits under Section 68-F (1) of the Act and since no rule had been framed prescribing the form of appli cation, it was not competent for the State Transport Authority to issue a permit to the appellant corporation under Section 68-F (1) of the Act. Aggrieved by the decision of res pondent No. 1, the Corporation filed a writ petition in this Court praying for a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order of respondent No. 1. Apart from certain ancillary reliefs, it was prayed, in the alternative, that a writ, order M- direction in the nature of mandamus be issued to the State of Uttar Pradesh commanding it to prescribe the manner for making an application for the grant of a permit under Section 68-F (1) of the Act. By means )f the judgment and order the legality of which is in challenge in this appeal, a learn-:d Single Judge of this Court allowed the writ petition in part. The prayer for quashing the order of respondent No. 1 was lent fused. The learned single Judge, however, directed the State Government to frame ap propriate rules under Section 68-1 (2) (cc) of the Act. Parties were ordered to bear their own costs. The learned single Judge held that after the amendment of Section 68-F (1) by the Act 56 of 1969, it became the impe rative duty of the State Government to frame rules under Section 68-1 (cc) prescribing the manner in which applications for the grant of permits had to be moved by the Corpora tion. Since admittedly no rules had been framed prescribing the manner for making an application under Section 68-F (1), the view was taken that the application made in the form prescribed by Rule 50 was incompe tent and the grant of permits to the Corpo ration on the basis of such an application was without jurisdiction.
(3.) DISSATISFIED with the order of the learned single Judge, the Corporation has appealed and it has been contended before us that it was neither obligatory for the State Government to frame a rule under Sec tion 68-1 (2) (cc) nor was the State Trans port Authority powerless to grant permits to the appellant in the absence of such a rule, provided the application was for a permit in pursuance of a scheme approved under Sec tion 68-D (3) of the Act.;