M.HIDAYATULLAH, J.

(1) THE appellant who appeals by special leave against the judgment of the High court of Allahabad dated 30/03/1964 is the holder of a contract carriage permit granted to him by the Regional Transport Authority, Agra and valid till 1/02/1955. He owns a single contract carriage and his permit covers the whole of the Agra region which comprises the six districts of Mathura, Agra, Aligarh, Etah, Etawah and Mainpuri. No special routa or routes are indicated in his permit and the termini of his operation are the frontiers of this region on all sides. In 1955, the government of Uttar Pradesh purporting to act under Sec. 3 of the U. P. Road Transport Services (Development) Act, 1955, framed a scheme for nationalisation of transport services in Uttac Pradesh. The scheme which was then framed was struck down by an order of the High court of Allahabad on the petition of soma private operators. In 1955, the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was amended by the introduction of Ch. IVA dealing with special provisions relating to State Transport Undertakings. This amendment was introduced by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1956 with effect from 16/02/1957. After the amending Act the scheme was reconsidered by the State government and action was taken under Ch. IVA to notify it under Sec. 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act. In this scheme 56 routes, which were mentioned by name, were removed from the operation of contract carriage permits issued to private operators in the Agra region and government announced that "adequate State Road Transport contract carriage services would be provided on those routes or portions thereof." The functioning of transport services other than those put by the State Road Transport Services was prohibited on all those routes. The private operators objected again but their objections were overruled and the scheme was published in the Gazette on 17/10/1959. A writ petition (Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 26622 of 1959) was filed by the appellant and others objecting to the scheme on, various grounds. This was allowed on 1/02/1962 by Mr. Justice Oak who set aside the scheme and remanded it for reconsideration in the light of his order. The scheme was not struck down in full but only partially inrespect of the petitioners in the High court It was ordered, however, that the State government would be at liberty to enforce the scheme in other respects. The main reason for striking down the scheme in respect of those petitioners was that their objections were not considered and they were not given a reasonable opportunity to produce evidence in support of their objections.

(2) AFTER remand objections were considered and an order was passed by the Legal Reimembrancer on 18/10/1963 by which the scheme was reaffirmed overruling the objections. The only change made was that instead of the provision of "adequate" contract carriage service by the State Road Transport Contract Carriage Services it was provided that "16 contract carriage services or more or iess in accordance with the need from time to time" would be provided on the routes or portion thereof which were notified. The appellant filed a petition in the High court challenging the scheme. It was heard by Mr. Justice Broome and rejected by him on 17/03/1964. The appellant then filed a special appeal under the Letters Patent against the decision of Mr. Justice Broome. The High court by the impugned order dismissed it "summarily" though it passed a fairly detailed order. It is against the order that the present appeal has been filed.

(3) THE first contention of Mr. G. S.Pathak is that although the scheme purports to be under Sec. 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, the requirements of that section were not borne in mind inasmuch as the scheme framed under Sec.3 of the U. P. Act was without any change approved and notified after the successive remands by the High court. It is therefore necessary to see how far the two prov