K. C. Agrawal, J. - (1.) THIS special appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by the U. P. State Road Transport Corporation, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the respondent 1). Through the said writ petition, the respondent 1 prayed for quashing the order dated 27th February, 1973 passed by the State Transport Appellate (Tribunal) at Lucknow (hereinafter called 'the Appellate Tribunal'). The dispute in the present case is with regard to the grant of stage carriage permits on Meerut-Delhi, an inter-State route. It appears that applications were filed by the appellants for grant of stage carriage permit sometime in 1972 on the aforesaid route. These applications were published on March 4, 1972 in the official Gazette of the State of U. P. No one filed any objection to the said applications. These applications were, thereafter, heard by the State Transport Authority on various dates viz. on August 7/8/9 and 23 of 1972. They were rejected on October 24, 1972 by the State Transport Authority on the ground that as Meerut-Delhi route was a nationalised route, the applications filed by the appellants for the grant of permits on the aforesaid route were not maintainable. Aggrieved by the above order, the appellants preferred appeals before the Appellate Tribunal. In these appeals, the respondent 1 filed an application for being impleaded as a party. The said application was rejected on December 20, 1972, and the appeals filed by the appellants were allowed by the Appellate Tribunal by the impugned order dated 27-2-1973. The respondent 1 thereafter filed the writ petition giving rise to this appeal at Allahabad and prayed for quashing of the aforesaid order of the Appellate Tribunal as well as for a Mandamus prohibiting the respondents 1 to 4 of the writ petition from giving effect to the impugned order mentioned above. The writ petition had been filed on a number of grounds including that as Meerut-Delhi route had been nationalised by the State Government and that the State Transport Undertaking had the exclusive privilege of plying its vehicles on the aforesaid route, the grant of permits to the appellants being contrary to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was illegal.
(2.) THE writ petition was resisted by the appellants and it was denied that the Meerut-Delhi route had been notified as required by the Motor Vehicles Act for the exclusive right of plying vehicles on that route to the complete exclusion of private operators. The contention raised on behalf of the appellants was that the route in question was not a notified route, therefore the Appellate Tribunal had jurisdiction to grant stage carriage permits to the appellants. The learned single Judge accepting the case of the respondent 1 allowed the writ petition quashing the order of the Appellate Tribunal dated 27th February, 1973. The view taken by the learned single Judge was that as the Notification dated 12th February, 1951 notifying Meerut-Delhi route as a nationalised route was validated by the U. P. Act IX of 1955, the result was that no private operator could legally obtain any permit on that route. In this view of the matter, the learned single Judge further found that the Transport Authorities, namely, the State Transport Authority and the Appellate Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain any application for the grant of stage carriage permit to private operators. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned single Judge, the present appeal has been filed by the appellants. The appellants have challenged the correctness of the Judgment of the learned single Judge on the following four grounds: (i) that U. P. State Road Transport Act (Act II of 1951) having been declared ultra vires by the Supreme Court on the ground of legislative competence in Saghir Ahmad's case (AIR 1954 SC 728), the notification in Annexure 1, dated February 12, 1951 issued under Section 13 (1) (b) of U. P. Act II of 1951 became non-est and was not in existence on 18-6-1951, the date on which U. P. State Road Transport Services (Development) Act (Act IX of 1955) had been enforced. Hence Sections 19 and 20 of U. P. Act IX of 1955 could not validate the above notification dated 12th February, 1951. (ii) that the writ petition filed by the respondent 1 challenging the order of the Appellate Tribunal was not entertainable at Allahabad, inasmuch as the Allahabad High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and hear the same at Allahabad, hence the judgment rendered by the learned single Judge was without jurisdiction. (iii) that the respondent 1 being no party to the dispute before the Appellate Tribunal and having not filed any objection to the grant of the applications under Section 57 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act had no locus standi to file the writ petition. (iv) that the learned single Judge who decided the writ petition was biased in favour of the respondent 1 and had, therefore, disqualified himself from deciding the writ petition. 4. We will take up these arguments in seriatim, but before doing so, we wish to deal with the history of the legislation covering the point involved in the present appeal very briefly. It appears that sometime after 1947, the State Government decided to run its own buses on the public thoroughfare. In furtherance of this policy, the Transport Authorities began cancelling permits already issued to private operators and refusing permits to them. Upon this a number of writ petitions were filed under Article 226 of the Constitution in this Court. In Moti Lal v. State of U. P., (AIR 1951 All 257) (FB), this Court held that the action of Government was illegal. Thereupon, the State Legislature enacted the U. P. State Road Transport Act, 1951. This became law on and from the 10th February, 1951. Section 13 (1) (b) of the Act provided that every route on which the State Road Transport Services was operating on the appointed date be deemed to be a route specified in a notification under Section 3 of the aforesaid Act and the services operating under a scheme duly prepared and published under and in accordance with Sections 4 and 5 provided that the State Government published in the official gazette within fifteen days of the commencement of the Act a notification as to the aforesaid Road Transport Services "providing as far as may be for all or any of the matters specified in sub-section (2) of Section 4, and the scheme duly confirmed and published under sub-section (3) of Section 5." The route to which it relates shall be called a notified route and the provisions of Sections 6 and 7 shall be applicable thereto. In the instant case, it is a common case of the parties that within fifteen days of the commencement of the aforesaid Act, a notification as required by Section 13 (1) (b) of the Act was published notifying Meerut-Delhi route as the nationalised route.
(3.) This Act was, however, subsequently challenged by means of a writ petition. Its validity was upheld by the High Court, but in appeal the Supreme Court in Saghir Ahmad's case (AIR 1954 SC 728) (supra) declared it ultra vires. Thereafter, the State Legislature passed the U. P. Road Transport Services (Development) Act, 1955, which came into force with effect from March 24, 1955. This Act was to operate retrospectively from June 18, 1951. Sections 3 to 9 made provisions for the framing of the scheme for the exclusive operation of State Road Transport Services on routes notified by the State Government. Section 10 provided as to the consequences of the publication of the scheme and Section 11 provided for payment of compensation. Section 19 deals with the validation of proceedings and actions taken under U. P. Act II of 1951. The validity of U. P. Act IX of 1955 was also challenged, but was ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court in Deep Chand v. State of U. P., AIR 1959 SC 648.;