JUDGMENT

KAILASAM, J.:—In all these appeals, writ petitions and special leave petitions the challenge is against the validity of the scheme framed by the State Transport Undertaking of U. P.

2. In giving special leave in Civil Appeals Nos. 804 to 810 of 1977 this Court restricted the special leave by stating "Special leave granted confined to the alleged conflict between S. 68 (c) of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rr. 7 and 16 (Section 7 and Section 16) of the U. P. Amendment Act of 1976, 127/1976)". When the hearing in these matters started Mr. Garg, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that there is no conflict between Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and Sections 7 and 16 of the U. P. Amendment Act. But his plea is that the amendment has not in any way affected or cured the defect in Sec. 68-C and therefore the defect in the scheme continues to render it invalid.

3. In terms of the restricted leave granted, we do not think it is strictly open to the learned counsel to raise the plea which he has taken before us. But as several matters are involved and there is a conflict between two judgments of the Allahabad High Court we gave permission to the learned counsel to