- (1.) THE three petitioners have come up with prayers to quash (i) the Resolution dated 22-6-1994 passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Dehradun (Respondent No. 1) as contained in Annexure-1 (ii) the Notification dt. 29-5-1993 as contained in Annexure-7 and to com mand Respondent No. 1 to dispose of their applications for grant-of permits for plying their vehicles on Muzaffar Nagar-Jamuna Bridge-Sidki- Deoband-Sarwat Route.
(2.) THE impugned notification (relevant part only) reads thus: "no. 1635/xxx293 365 85,dated Luck-now, May 29,1993 In exercise of the powers under sub-sec tion (2) of Section 100 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Act No. 59 of 1988) and in viewof the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in civil appeal Nos. 1198, 1199, 1200 and 1201 of 1992, Sri Ram Krishna Verma A Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Governor is pleased to approve the following scheme, the purpose of which was published in U. P. Gazette (Extraordinary) dated February 13,1988 with Notification No. 1239-RW/1056 RW-8, dated, February 13, 1986 under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Act No. 4 of 1939) SCHEMe (a) THE Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation shall commence to operate Road Transport Services (State Car riage contract carriage, otherwise than taxi cabe. and bears cars) from 25-2-86 or thereafter. (b) THE Road Transport Services (stage carriages, contract carriages other than taxi cabe and bears cars) by the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation shall be provided on the following routes of Meerut and Dehradun regions out of whi9h some routes are inter-state routes of U. P. and Delhi. 28. Muzaffarnagar-Rohans-Depban-Nagal-Saharanpur-Sarganwa (Yamuna Bridge) By order, USHA CHATRATh Pramukh Sachiv" A perusal of the impugned Resolu tion shows following things: (i) Prayer for grant to ply motor vehicle to all private operators on the route was rejected keeping in view the provisions of Chapter VI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as also the orders of this High Court. (ii) In public interest S. R. T. C. was directed to increase its frequency on the Route in ques tion. (iii) As the Route in question is Inter-state the Permit will be granted by the S. TA: and thus the applications received from S. T. R. C. be sent to the Secretary, S. T. A Lucknow. It is admitted by Mr. A. D. Saunders, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the route in question is nationalised one, yet the petitioners want a mandamus to be issued by this Court directing the concerned authority to grant them permits quashing the notification dated 29-5-1993. He also admits that the Petitioners have not brought on the record copy/copies of the service reports, which would have shown the particulars of the manner showing how the notices were ef fected on the Petitioners. Even complete order-sheet has also not been appended inasmuch as Annexure-5 appears to be a note and not a certified copy of order-sheet or even assuming that it is a copy of the order-sheet then it does not contain the order dated 12-6-1993 and onwards or ders.
(3.) MR. A. D. Saunders, learned Coun sel for the petitioners made a solitary sub mission before us that as in another writ petition a learned Single Judge has stayed the operation of the notification hence the relief prayed for in this writ petition be granted without giving its number, name of the parties and the date of its disposal for our verification. We wanted from Sri Saunders to show further any binding precedent that a decision rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court will be binding on our Division Bench. He expresses his inability 'in showing any such decision. He also ex presses his inability in telling us the reasons given by the learned Single Judge for doing so. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court that decisions of smaller Benches are not bind ing on a larger Bench.;