K.N.Singh, J. - (1.) By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the four petitioners who are per-mit-holders for plying stage carriages on Orai-Kodaura route, have challenged validity of the Notification dated 17th February, 1973 issued under Section 68-D (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939.
(2.) A notification under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 hereinafter referred to as the Act, was published on 28-9-1967 proposing a scheme under Chapter IV-A of the Act for exclusive plying of stage carriages of the U. P. State Transport Undertaking on Orai-Kodaura and two other allied routes. The notification invited objections from the affected persons. A number of objections were filed and the hearing authority fixed 21-1-1971 for hearing of the objections. A Gazette notification was published giving information of the date of hearing to the objectors. The hearing authority considered the objections and heard the objectors, but the petitioners did not appear, and, in their absence the hearing authority dismissed their objections and approved the scheme. Thereafter the approved scheme was notified in the gazette dated 17-2-1973. Aggrieved, the petitioners have challenged the validity of the notification.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the petitioners were not afforded any opportunity of hearing in respect of their objections as no notice was issued to them, giving information of the date of hearing and as such they could not appear before the hearing authority to lead evidence in support of their objections. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is conceded that no individual notices were sent to the petitioners although a notice was published in the gazette dated 24-12-1970 giving information to all the objectors to appear before hearing authority on January 21, 1971 for the purposes of hearing of their objections. Since the notice was published in the gazette, it is urged that a presumption would arise that the petitioners had knowledge of the date of hearing. Since they did not appear before the hearing authority, they are not entitled to raise the question of absence of opportunity of hearing. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that in the absence of individual notices to the petitioners under registered cover, no presumption could arise. The order of the hearing authority approving the scheme is null and void as the petitioners were denied opportunity of hearing.;