B.N. Sapru, J. - (1.) THE petitioners were operators of stage carriages on (i) Jaunpur-Minhajpur, (ii) Jaunpur-Saidpur via Kirakat, (iii) Jaunpur-Kirakat, (iv) Jaunpur-Ghazipur via Kirakat, Aurihar and Sadipur and (v) Jaunpur- Dhobi via Kirakat routes. THEy held valid permits to operate their stage carriages over these routes.
(2.) A draft scheme under S. 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act was published in the U. P. Gazette dated 26th August, 1961. Certain objections challenging the scheme under S. 68-C of the Act were filed. The scheme was however, approved and was published in the U. P. Gazette dated 2-6-1973. Consequential orders under S. 68-F (2) (b) cancelling the petitioners' permits were made. The approved scheme prepared under S. 68-D was challenged in writ no. 6734 of 1973. The aforesaid writ petition was allowed by this Court by its judgment D/- 21-12-1973. The Court quashed the notification dated 18th August, 1961 and the order of respondent no. 2 viz., the Joint Legal Remembrancer, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, dated 22-4-1971. An appeal was preferred against the said judgment being special appeal no. 82 of 1974 : (AIR 1976 All 315), State of U. P. v. Shashi Kant Rai and others. Special appeal was dismissed. The Division Bench which decided the special appeal held that the scheme prepared by the State Government under S. 68-C must give (1) particulars of the nature of the service proposed to be rendered, (2) particulars of the route proposed to be covered and (3) such other particulars respecting thereof as may be prescribed. It was observed that the requirement of giving particulars is two-fold, viz: (1) to enable the persons under sub-sec. (1) of S. 68-D to file objections to the approved scheme by showing that the purposes set out in S. 68-C, will not be fulfilled by it; and (2) to enable the Hearing Authority to decide whether the purposes, for which the scheme has been prepared, will be fulfilled by it or not. It was further held that if the particulars regarding the adequacy etc. of the proposed transport services are not given in the draft scheme, then it will not be possible for the objectors to file any effective objections to the draft scheme in this regard and it would be difficult for the Hearing Authority to give its decision whether the draft scheme will be able to provide road transport services which would fulfil the four purposes mentioned in S. 68-C. It was then held that the draft scheme must give particulars indicating how the proposed transport services would be efficient, adequate, economical and properly co-ordinated.
(3.) THE scheme prepared under S. 68-C which was impugned merely stated in paragraph 3: " Adequate number of State Road Transport Services, according to traffic requirement are to be provided on the route or the portion thereof mentioned in cl. (2) above. THE provision of transport services otherwise than under the scheme is prohibited." The learned single Judge who decided the writ petition and the Division Bench which decided the special appeal were both of the view that the draft scheme prepared under S. 68-C was defective as the minimum number of services and the vehicles which were proposed to be introduced on the route, had not been mentioned. The learned Single Judge who decided the writ petition held that the defect in the scheme prepared under S. 68-C was such as to render it invalid as the foundation for preparing the scheme under section 68-C was absent. It was further held by the learned single judge that the entire subsequent proceedings for finalisation of the scheme became void in view of the defect in the draft scheme prepared under section 68-C. The view of the learned single judge was affirmed in the special appeal. The judgment in Special Appeal No. 82 of 1974. State of U. P. v. Shashi Kant Rai is reported in AIR 1976 All 315.;