Lakshmi Prasad, J. - (1.)THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been referred to a Division Bench by our brother Nigam by his order dated 4th November. 1965 on the ground that it involves the decision of an important question of law on which there has been some difference of opinion between Nigam J. on the one hand and Jagdish Sahai J. on the other and as such, it is desirable to have an authoritative pronouncement by this Court.
(2.)BY their resolution dated 18th November, 1962 the Regional Transport Authority, Lucknow Region, opposite party No. 2, took a decision to increase the strength of Lucknow-Hardoi route via Malihabad and Rahimabad by twenty. This decision was taken without affording any opportunity to the operators already operating on that route to make any representation against the proposed increase in the strength on that route. Accordingly, some of the operators preferred revisions before the State Transport Authority, opposite party No. 1 in December, 1962 under Section 64-A of the Motor Vehicles Act against the aforesaid decision of the Regional Transport Authority to increase the strength on the said route by twenty. Opposite party No. 2 dismissed those revisions as -non-maintainable by an order dated 21st March. 1963. The petitioner is one of the existing operators whb had gone in revision before the State Transport Authority and whose revision has been dismissed by the aforesaid order. It is in these circumstances that he prefers this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that the said order dated 21st March. 1963 passed by opposite party No. 1 be quashed by a wrif of certiorari and further opposite party No. 1 be directed to dispose of the revision on merits according to law.
The petition has been contested by the opposite parties We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(3.)THE contention of Sri Jha appearing for the petitioner is that on reading Sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act together it is obvious that the law enjoins on the Regional Transpori Authority to take into consideration the representations made by the existing operators on a particular route before taking a decision for an increase in the existing strength on that route. Thus, his contention is that in order to comply with that requirement it is incumbent on the Regional Transport Authority whenever it proposes to increase the existing strength on any route to give notice to the persons already operating on that route to enable them to make representations; if any, against the proposed change in the existing strength of the route. Since admittedly, no notice in the instant case was given and the resolution dated 17th November. 1962 came to be passed without affording any chance to the existing operators on Lucknow-Hardoi route, the argument is that the said resolution increasing the strength on the route by twenty is bad and deserves to be struck down. As regards the view expressed against the said contention in the case of Brij Lal Misra v. Regional Transport Authority, AIR 1958 All 390 by Jagdish Sahai J. and affirmed in the case of Lakshmi Chand v. Regional Transport Authority, AIR 1959 AH 782 by a Division Bench, consisting of Mootham C. J. and Reghubar Dayal, J. The contention of the learned counsel is that the basis on which these two decisions proceed must be taken to be nonexistent in view of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Abdul Mateen v Ram Kailash Pandey, AIR 1963 SC 64 and hence those decisions of this Court may not be treated as laying down good law.