C. S. P. Singh, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition and the connected writ petitions have been filed by transport operators belonging mostly to the State of Rajasthan and some of them to Uttar Pradesh.
(2.) THE State Transport Undertaking of Uttar Pradesh framed four schemes for four routes:- (i) Mathura-Alwar, (ii) Mathura-Kama-Kosi, (iii) Agra-Dholpur, (iv) Agra-Bharatpur. The four notifications in respect of all the four schemes were published in the U. P. Gazette. Copies of the notifications were also sent to Rajasthan for being pasted on the notice board of the transport authorities in Rajasthan. Some of the private bus operators filed objections. After disposing of these objections, the schemes as finally approved by the State Government, were published in the U. P. Gazette and notifications were also put up on the notice board of the transport authorities in Rajasthan. The schemes, though proposed by the State Transport Undertaking of Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the 'Undertaking'), received the concurrence of the State of Rajasthan. Put briefly, what the schemes did was to exclude all private bus operators on the aforesaid routes. The schemes provided that only buses belonging to the undertakings of Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan would ply their buses on the aforesaid routes. By subsequent notifications, the permits held by the petitioners were cancelled under Section 68-F of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The validity of the notifications was challenged by means of these writ petitions on the conclusion that the State could not legally, by taking unilateral action provide transport services for a territory outside the limits of its own state. He also held that one State could not cancel the permits held by the bus operators of another State and that effective notice was not given to the bus operators of the Rajasthan as the notifications were published in the Gazette of Uttar Pradesh only. The notifications, as such were quashed. Special appeals against the decision of the learned single judge were filed which were heard and disposed of by a Division Bench on the 9th December, 1971. The Division Bench allowed the special appeals filed by the State and held that the main schemes and the notifications were valid. It, however, remanded the case as the learned single judge who had disposed of the petitions had not considered certain other aspects of the case and had disposed of the petitions on general grounds common to all the petitions In view of the fact that the learned single Judge was not available the Division Bench directed that the writ petitions be heard by another Bench nominated by the Chief Justice for that purpose. The operators then preferred appeals in the Supreme Court. These appeals preferred by the operators failed. The Supreme Court appears to have disposed of these appeals by two decisions, one in Civil Appeals Nos. 737 to 745 of 1972 Ch. Khajan Singh v. State of U.P. reported in AIR 1974 SC 669 and the other being Civil Appeals Nos. 1119 to 1122 of 1973, decided on 10th September, 1974 : (reported in AIR 1975 SC 40). The matter has now come up again for decision on the other points involved in the writ petitions.
(3.) ALTHOUGH we have been unable to compress the facts relating to this litigation in this short space, the petitions have remained pending in this court for the last 13 years and the schemes framed have not yet been fully enforced.;