- (1.) The issue involved for consideration in both the above writ petitions requires tracing the chronological events which takes us to pre-constitution era. The petitioners or their predecessor-in-interest of both the above writ petitions are plying their vehicles on Etawah Mainpuri-via-Karhal route (hereinafter referred to as the `route in question') since 1948 on the basis of permanent stage carriage permits granted to them by the Regional Transport Authority, Agra from time to time being valid upto 1991. In all 35 persons are plying on the route in question on the basis of permanent stage carnage permits and three other persons are operating on the route in question on the basis of temporary stage carriage permits granted to them by the Regional Transport Authority, Agra (R.T.A. Agra) since 1972.
(2.) U.P. Government Roadways published a scheme dated 25-3-1954 under U.P. State Road Transport Act, 1950 in U.P. Gazette dated 3-4-1954 purporting to be for exclusive operation of the vehicles of erstwhile U.P. Government Roadways. The scheme was, however, not acted upon and the then U.P. Government Roadways did not obtain any permit in pursuance of the said scheme nor plied its vehicles even otherwise after the publication of the alleged scheme dated 25-3-1954. No steps were taken to cancel the permits of the existing operators on the basis of the said scheme dated 25-3-1954.
(3.) The validity of the aforesaid scheme was challenged by one o f the existing operators, namely, Sri Faiyaz Ali before this Court. The challenge failed, however, aforesaid Faiyaz Ali challenged the same in the Supreme Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition was numbered as writ petition No. 288 of 1954. The Apex Court vide its order dated 23-10 54 allowed the writ petition filed by Sri Faiyaz Ali and held that U.P. State Road Transport Act, 1950 violates the fundamental rights of the petitioner above-named, guaranteed under Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and is not protected by clause 6 of the said Article and also held that the said Act violates the provisions of Art. 31(2) of the Constitution of India and restrained the respondents from enforcing the provisions of U.P. State Road Transport Act, 1950 against the petitioner abovenamed. The leading judgment is reported in AIR 1954 SC 728: (1955 All LJ 38) (Sagir Ahmad's case). However, since besides the route in question by the impugned judgment several other schemes, of the U.P. Government for exclusive operation of their stage carriages, were affected, the State Legislature came forward with an enactment being U.P. Road Transport Service Development Act 1955 (U.P. Act No. 9 of 1955). The aforesaid Act re-validated the proceedings of the scheme notified under the provisions of said U.P. State Transport Act, 1950 (U.P. Act No. 2 of' 1951) notwithstanding any judgment or decree of any Court. The relevant validating provisions were contained in S. 19 of U.P. Act No. 9 of 1955. The relevant portion of the aforesaid section is being reproduced hereunder for convenience: "19. Validation of proceedings and actions (1) Subject to the right of any person to receive compensation, if any, under S. 11 in respect of cancellation of a permit or curtailment of a route covered by it, but without prejudice to the provisions of any other law for the time being in force (a) all orders made, actions or proceedings taken, directions issued or jurisdiction exercised by any authority under or in accordance with the provisions of the U.P. State Road Transport Act, 1950, or deemed under the said Act, to have been so made, taken, issued or exercised, shall be deemed to be as good and valid in law. as if such orders, actions, proceedings, directions and jurisdictions had been duly made, taken issued or exercised under this Act, any judgment, decree, order or decision of any Court of authority notwithstanding :(b) and (c) ...................................................................................................................(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of clause (a) of sub-section (1) it is hereby declared that -(a) every route on which the State Road Transport Service was operating on the appointed date and every such service shall for purposes of: this Act be deemed to be a route specified in the notification under S. 3, and the service operating under a scheme duly prepared and published under and in accordance with Sections 4 to 8;(b) and (c) ..................................................";