Judgment

WANCHOO, J.: This petition under Art.32 of the Constitution is a sequel to Writ Petition No. 75 of 1959* which is also being disposed of today. It is not necessary therefore to set out the early history leading to this petition as that has already been given in the judgment in Petition No. 75*. Suffice it to say that the petitioners who are the same as the petitioners in Petition No. 75* were transport operators in the Anekal pocket in the State of Mysore. They held stage carriage permits for various routes which were expiring on 31-3-1958. They were granted renewal of these permits up to March 31, 1959. In the meantime, steps were taken to formulate an approved scheme under Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. No. IV of 1939, (hereinafter called the Act). The scheme was finally approved and published on April 23, 1959. In order, however, to avoid inconvenience to the public temporary permits were granted, to the petitioners after March 31, 1959, for a period of four months or up to the time the Mysore Government Road Transport Department (hereinafter called the Department) was granted permits under S. 68F, whichever was earlier. Sometime before June 23, 1959, the Department applied for permits in accordance with the scheme while the petitioners had applied for renewal of their permits. The Regional Transport Authority, Bangalore (hereinafter called the Authority) issued permits to the Department and rejected the renewal applications of the petitioners on June 23, 1959. The petitioners then applied to the High Court of Mysore by a writ petition challeging the issue of permits to the Department and the refusal of renewal to them. This petition was disposed of by the High Court on July 14, 1959, and it was held that the grant of permits to the Department was invalid and the rejection of the renewal applications of the petitioners was incorrect; but the High Court dismissed this petition on the ground that the relief to which the petitioners were entitled, in view of these findings, would be short-lived. The petitioners then applied for a certificate to enable them to appeal to this Court and that application is still pending. The present petition was filed on August 3, 1959.

2. The first contention of the petitioners in this petition is that after the scheme had been approved and published under Chapter IV-A of the Act, it was the duty of the Department to apply under S. 68F for all the routes covered by the scheme and it was only, when the Department applied for all the routes, that it would be open to the Authority to reject the applications for renewal made by the petitioners. The Department in this case applied only for some of the routes and in particular it was pointed out that there was no application at any rate for one out of the fourteen routes included in the scheme. Therefore it is submitted that the Department by picking and choosing which route to apply for and which to leave out was discriminating against those operators for whose routes it applied for permits and in favour of those operators for whose routes it did not apply for permits. Further, the Authority by granting permits to the Department in such circumstances was denying equality before the law of the petitioners. This was an infringement of Art. 14 of the Constitution and also contravened the petitioner s right to carry on business guaranteed under Art. 19(1) (g). Secondly, the petitioners contended that the Authority could not issue permits in this case as S. 57 (2) and (3) was not complied with. The petitioners therefore prayed for a direction quashing the order of the Authority issuing permits to the Department under S. 68F and refusing their renewal applications.

3. The petition has been opposed by the Department and its contention is that even though an approved scheme might cover a number of routes, it was open to the Department to implement it in stages and that it was the best judge as to which route should be taken over first and ther