1574, 1575, 1576, 1577, 1578, 1579,1444,1584,1586,1589, 1631, 1632, 1634, 1635, 1636,1694, 1695, 1697, 1704, 1707, 3726, 1647, 1948 and 1949 and 1956.
The appellants filed applications for permission to urge new grounds in the appeals, which were number taken before the High Court.
380 385, 387 389, 391 399 and 401 of 1958 .
K. Nambiyar, Shyam Nath Kacker, J. B. Dadachanji, S. N. Andley and Rameshwar Nath, for the appellants in C. As.
380 to 389, 391 to 399, 401, 429 and 431 to 434 of 1958.
The scheme of nationalisation was initiated and finally approved between the date of the rejection of the appellants application for renewal and the date when his appeal was allowed.
The judgment of Das, C. J., and Sinha, J., was delivered by Das, C. J. The judgment of Bhagwati, Subba Rao and Wanchoo, JJ.,
January 15.
Appeals from the judgment and decree dated December 19, 1956, of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc.
The appellants in thirteen appeals, namely, Civil Appeals Nos.
386/58 .
N.Kacker and J. B. Dadachanji, for the appellant in C. A. No.
It appears that the operators of the Agra region did number appear on the 7th.
The appellants companytention, among others, was that the entire proceedings were taken behind his back and therefore the scheme was number binding on him.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
was delivered by Subba Rao, J. DAS, C. J. We have had the advantage of perusing the judgment prepared by our learned Brother Subba Rao and we agree with the order proposed by him, namely, that all the above appeals should be dismissed with companyts, although we do number subscribe to all the reasons advanced by him.
The facts in Civil Appeal No.
All the appeals were companysolidated by order of the High Court.
The numberification issued under s. 8 of the U. P. Act was pub lished in the U. P. Gazette on June 23, 1956, and on June 25, 1956, the Secretary to the Regional Transport Authority, Agra, sent an order purported to have been issued by the Transport Commissioner to the operators, of the Agra region prohibiting them from plying their stage carriages on the routes and also informing them that their permits would be transferred to other routes.
The U. P. Legislature, after obtaining the assent of the President on April 23, 1955, passed the U. Act and duly published it on April 24, 1955.
429 431 434/58 .
Pursuant to the order of the Tribunal, the appellants pert nit was renewed with effect from November 1, 1953, and it was made valid up to October 31, 1956.
The appellants have been carrying on business as stage carriage operators for a companysiderable number of years on different routes in Uttar Pradesh under valid, permits issued under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, along with buses owned by Government.
Naunit Lal, for the appellants in C. As.
Writs Nos.
429 of 1958 are slightly different from those in other appeals and they may be stated The appellants application for renewal of his permanent permit was rejected in 1953 but, on appeal, the State Transport Authority Tribunal allowed his appeal on September 6,1956, and directed his permit to be renewed for three years beginning from November 1, 1953.
B. Asthana G. N. Dikshit, for the respondents.
On November 12, 1955, the State Government published the numberification under s. 4 of the U. P. Act formulating the scheme for the aforesaid routes among others.
On that date, the objections filed by the operators other than those of the Agra region were heard and the inquiry in regard to the Agra region was adjourned to January 7, 1956.
The appellants received numberices under s. 5 of the U. P. Act requiring them to file objections, if any, to the said scheme and after the objections were received, they were informed that they would be heard by a Board on January 2, 1956.
On July 7, 1956, a numberice was sent to filed Writ Petitions in the Allahabad High Court challenging the validity of the U. P. Act and the numberifications issued thereunder.
Under s. 3 of the U. P. Act, the Government issued a numberification dated May 17, 1955, whereunder it was directed that the aforesaid routes along with others should be exclucively served by the stage carriages of the Government and the private stage carriages should be excluded from those routes.
The appellant applied on October 11, 1956, for the renewal of his permit and he was informed by the Road Transport Authority, Allahabad, that numberaction on his application, under reference was possible.
387 to 389, 391 to 394, 396 to 399 and 401 and 429 were offered alternative routes.
Though they tentatively accepted the offer, presumably on the ground that it was the lesser of the two evils, in fact they obtained stay as an interim arrangement and companytinued to operate on the old routes.
