JUDGMENT

ORDER :— The short question which arises for consideration in this case is whether a suit is maintainable in a Civil Court for an injunction restraining the Hearing Authority appointed under S. 68-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) from proceeding with the hearing of matters under that provision and from approving a scheme published under S. 68-C of the Act either with or without any modification.

2. The petitioner is the holder of a permit issued under Chapter IV of the Act to ply a stage carriage on Bulandshahr - Siana - Garh - Bugrasi - Brijghat - Bhasians - Sahambhaoli - Babugarh - Jadol - Jahangirabad route in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The State Transport Undertaking of the State of Uttar Pradesh published a scheme dated March 7, 1975 in the U. P., Gazette dated April 5, 1975 under S. 68-C of the Act proposing to operate its stage carriages to the exclusion of all private operators on the route referred to above. The petitioner filed his objections to the said scheme along with several others. After a number of adjournments the Hearing Authority empowered under S. 68-D of the Act was able to conclude the proceedings by April 26, 1979 and it is alleged that the Authority in the course of the hearing observed that it would finalise and approve the scheme by 21-5-1979. Before the Hearing Authority could give its approval to the scheme under S. 68-D of the Act, the petitioner filed Original Suit No. 145 of 1979 on the file of the Civil Judge, Bulandshahr for a declaration that the above scheme published under S. 68-C of the Act was illegal, void and ultra vires and for an injunction restraining the defendants in the suit from finalising and approving the scheme and acting upon it after it was published. The State Transport Undertaking, i.e., the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Regional Transport Authority, Meerut were impleaded as the defendants in the suit. The defendants contested the suit. One of the pleas raised in their written statement was that the suit was not maintainable in a Civil Court for the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner. During the pendency of the suit the petitioner filed an application before the Civil Court for staying the hearing of the suit till the disposal of a special leave petition before this Court since the question relating to the maintainability of suits of similar nature was involved in the said special leave petition. The learned Civil Judge declined to grant the request of the petitioner and fixed the suit for arguments on- November 8, 1985. Aggrieved by the order of the Civil Judge, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr. That revision petition was dismissed. Against the order of the Additional District Judge, the petitioner filed a writ petition on the file of the High Court of Allahabad. That petition was also dismissed. This special leave petition is filed against the order of the High Court of Allahabad.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in this case on the question of maintainability of the suit out of which this petition arises.

4. The question for consideration in this case is, as mentioned above, whether a suit is maintainable in a Civil Court for an injunction restraining the Hearing Authority under S. 68D of the Act from proceeding with the hearing and approving the scheme either with or without modification. The contention of the respondents before the trial Court was that the suit was not maintainable for the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner since the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts in such matters was impliedly barred.

5. Chapter IVA of the Act was introduced into the Act by Act 100 of 1956. S. 68-B of the Act provides that the provisions of the Chapter IVA and the rules and orders made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in Chapter IV of the Act or any