A.P. Srivastava, J. - (1.) The facts giving rise to these two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution being almost identical it will be convenient to dispose them of together.
(2.) The two petitioners in these petitions Pt. Sri Niwas and Sri Raghubir Saran Rastogi held permits for plying stage carriages on the Budaun-Asafpur-Chandausi route in the Rohilkhand division. The Government decided to nationalise the route and a notification was issued under Sec. 3 of the U. P. Road, Transport Services (Development) Act (No. IX of 1955) declaring that this route would be operated exclusively by the State Government. Thereafter a scheme was published as required by Sec. 4 of the Act and in cl. (g) of that scheme the permits held by the two petitioners were shown as permits which were to be cancelled as a result of the coming into force of the scheme. Objections were filed to the scheme but it was ultimately confirmed and the final scheme was published as required by Sec. 8 of the Act on the 23rd of June 1956. In this final scheme the permits of the two petitioners were not mentioned as those which were to be cancelled. After the publication of the final scheme a notification was published under Sec. 10 (1) (d) of the Act declaring the cancellation of the permits of a number of persons who plied their stage carriages on the route but in this notification also there was no mention of the permits in favour of the petitioners. Then on the 4th February 1958 another notification was published under Sec. 10 (1) (d) of the Act in respect of the permits held by the petitioners and they too were directed to be cancelled. The contention of the petitioners is that because the cancellation of their permits was not provided for in the scheme as it was finally published under Sec. 8, it was not open to the State or to the Transport authorities to issue a notification cancelling their permits under Sec. 10 (1) (d) of the Act. They, therefore, want that the notification dated the 4th of February 1958 be quashed by a writ of certiorari and that a writ of mandamus be issued commanding the opposite parties not to give effect to that notification.
(3.) It is not disputed that though the permits in favour of the petitioners were mentioned in the scheme as it was originally published under Sec. 4 of the Act, they were not mentioned in the scheme as it was finally published under Sec. 8 of the Act. The explanation put forward is that the period of the permits originally granted to the petitioners expired. They applied for renewal but it was refused. Temporary permits were therefore granted to them and were renewed once but then the renewal of the temporary permits was also refused. The petitioners had appealed against that order refusing the renewal of their original permits but at the time when the scheme was finally published under Sec. 8 they did not hold any permit either permanent or temporary and therefore there was no question of their permits being mentioned in the scheme as was finally published under Sec. 8. It is, however, contended that the power of issuing a notification under Sec. 10 (1) (d) of the Act can be exercised not only in respect of the permits mentioned in the scheme but also in respect of any other permits, the cancellation of which may become necessary in the circumstances of the case. The appeals which the petitioners had preferred against the refusal to renew their permits were allowed by the appellate authority and then it became necessary to cancel the permits in favour of the petitioners also. The requisite notification under Sec. 10 (1) (d) of the Act was, therefore, issued on the 4th of February 1958. The argument is that the petitioners are not entitled to have that notification quashed or to prevent the opposite parties from enforcing it.;