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 raise this question.

4. The point that is raised by Mr.Garg is that the introduction of Ss. 7 and 16 by the Amending Act 27 of 1976, the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Act, 1976 does not dispense with the requirements specified in Section 68-C as the two sections relate only to approved schemes.

5. In order to appreciate learned counsels contention it is necessary to set out Sec. 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1976. Section 68-C reads as follows :-

"Where any State Transport Undertaking is of opinion that for the purpose of providing an efficient, adequate, economical and properly co-ordinated road transport service, it is necessary in the public interest that road transport services in general or any particular class of such service in relation to any area or route or portion thereof should be run and operated by the State transport undertaking, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, of other persons or otherwise, the State transport undertaking may prepare a scheme giving particulars of the nature of the service proposed to be rendered, the area or route proposed to be covered and such other particulars respecting thereto as may be prescribed, and shall cause every such scheme to be published in the official gazette and also in such other manner as the State Government may direct."

Section 68-C requires the State Transport Undertaking to prepare a scheme giving particulars of the nature of the services proposed to be rendered, the area or route proposed to be covered and such other particulars respecting thereto as may be prescribed. It is thus necessary that the scheme give (1) particulars of the services proposed to be rendered; (2) the area or route proposed to be covered; (3) such other particulars (respecting) thereto as may be prescribed. The scheme prepared under Sec. 68-C did not specify the number of services to be provided. The Allahabad High Court in Shashi Kant Rai v. Regional Transport Authority, Varanasi Region, AIR 1978 All 68 held that if the particulars regarding the adequacy etc. of the proposed transport services are not given in the draft scheme then it will not be possible for the objectors to file any effective objection to the draft scheme in this regard and it would be difficult for the Hearing Authority to give its decision whether the draft scheme will be able to provide road transport services which would fulfil the four purposes mentioned in Section 68-C. The Court held that the draft scheme must give particulars indicating how the proposed transport services would be efficient, adequate, economical and properly co-ordinated. The scheme mentioned "adequate number of State Transport Services according to traffic requirements are to be provided on the route or the portion thereof mentioned in Cl. (