J.K.Tandon, J. - (1.) This and five other writ petitions, Nos. 2360, 2361, 2362, 2363 and 2364 all of 1957, have similar facts and raise identical questions of law. They have also been heard together and can be disposed of by a single judgment.
(2.) I shall, therefore reproduce here the facts in writ petition No. 2359 of 1957 and shall if need be refer to any extra fact in the sister writ petitions should it be necessary in disposing it.
(3.) Ram Prasad the petitioner in writ No. 2359 of 1957, held road permit No. 116 A for a stage carriage on Agra Shamshabad-Tula road. The last permit granted to him was in 1954 which was valid upto 12-8-1957. On 11-6-1951, the State Government nationalised the above route and made the declaration under Section 3 of the U. P. State Road Transport Act, 1951. that the stage carriages by the State shall be run on it to the exclusion of the petitioner. Subsequently in pursuance of a scheme prepared under the Act, the petitioner was served with a notice that his permit shall stand cancelled with effect from 11-11- 1952. As a result of this notice the applicant moved this Court against the validity of the notice and constitutionality of the U. P. State Transport Act, 1951. This Act was ultimately on 13-10-1954, held to be ultra vires by the Supreme Court. Ram Prasad, however, continued to ply the stage carriage on the route during this interval in view of the stay granted by this Court and the Supreme Court. The State Legislature then passed the U. P. Road Transport Services (Development) Act, 1955 and like its predecessor Act this too made provision for State road transport services on the lines contained in the Act of 1951. On 25-6-1956 the petitioner was served with a fresh notice under the provisions of the Act of 1955 that the stage carriage vide permit No. 116A shall in pursuance of the scheme made thereunder cease to ply on the above route and shall be transferred to Etah-Sikohabad route. There is a provision in the Act of 1955 which authorised the transfer of permit from one route to another. The transference was apparently done under this provision. The petitioner once again moved this Court by a writ petition challenging the validity of the Act of 1955 and of the scheme framed thereunder including the order of transfer. This was writ petition No. 1578 of 1956. He also obtained an interim stay order wherefore he continued to ply his stage carriage. This writ was, however, dismissed by a Division Bench which held that the Act etc. were valid. Against that decision the petitioner asked a certificate of fitness for appeal to the Supreme Court which was granted. Along with it the Court also made a stay order, relevant portions of which may usefully be reproduced here. "For the reasons given above we are of the opinion that we should, as we do, direct, that the petitioner should not be restrained from running his bus on such route on which he was entitled to run his bus under the permit obtained by him under the Motor Vehicles Act. The petitioner will be entitled to run his bus only for the period for which he held valid permit. This order of ours will, however, not be considered to mean that the State will not have a right to put more of their buses on this route on which the petitioner operates, if the State so desires and have the power under the provisions of the U. P. Road Transport Services (Development) Act, 1955. This order of stay will be operative till the petitioner lodges his appeal in the Supreme Court. We wish to make it clear that if the permit of the petitioner in the meanwhile expired or may expire during the period during which the stay order granted by us is operative then the petitioner will have the right to apply for renewal of his permit and it will not be a valid ground for the authority dealing with the renewals to say that since the U. P. Road Transport Service (Development) Act 1955 had been held to be intra vires of the Constitution and since that Act is held to be operative the permits will not be renewed. Applications for renewals of permit will be considered by the authority entitled to make the renewal on grounds laid down under the Motor Vehicles Act." Although the certificate of fitness was granted long ago it does not appear, at least a contrary statement has not been made in the respondents' affidavit either, that an appeal has till now been lodged in the Supreme Court.;