JUDGMENT :

J.C. Shah, J.

1. The State of Uttar Pradesh decided to nationalise the Delhi-Saharanpur inter-State route and published a scheme in that behalf under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. After hearing the objections of persons affected, the scheme was published in the Official Gazette of the State Government under Section 68-D(3) on 29-9-1959. Thirty-two permit-holders applied to the High Court at Allahabad for quashing the scheme.

2. A Single Judge of the High Court, held that there were certain defects in the proceeding taken by the Government under Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act in sanctioning the scheme and proceeded to order that "the Notification dated 29-9-1959 under Section 68-D could not stand so far as the 32 petitioners were concerned". He proceeded then to observe:

"The notification indicates that it hits about 46 persons in all. The scheme as sanctioned ought not to be enforced against the present petitioners at least. The State Government may be left to enforce it, if it is so desired, against persons other than the present petitioners."

The learned Judge then ordered that:

"The State Government of Uttar Pradesh is directed not to enforce the Notification dated 29-9-1959 against the 32 petitioners. The State Government will be at liberty to hold a fresh enquiry under Section 68-D of the Motor Vehicles Act on the basis of the original proposal in accordance with law."

3. Encouraged by the order made in the petitions filed by 32 petitioners, another batch of 18 transport operators applied to the High Court of Allahabad for quashing the scheme. The same learned Judge who had dealt with the original petitions heard those petitions and passed the order that:

"For reasons given in my judgment dated 31-10-1961 these 18 petitions have also to be allowed in part. It is not necessary to interfere with the notification issued under Section 68-C of the Act. It will be sufficient if the Notification dated 29-9-1959 is quashed so far as the present 18 petitioners are concerned. These 18 petitions are disposed of accordingly. The State of U.P. is directed not to enforce the Notification dated 29-9-1959 under Section 68-D of the Motor Vehicles Act against the present 18 petitioners."

4. The two appellants in these appeals who did not hold at the relevant time any transport permits, applied on 5-2-1962 for permits on the route covered by the scheme published on 29-9-1959. Their applications were rejected by the Regional Transport Authority by order and the orders were confirmed in appeal.

5. The writ petition filed against that order before the High Court of Allahabad challenging the rejection of the application for the grant of permits also did not meet with success. The appellants have appealed to this Court with special leave.

6. Three contentions are raised by Mr Chagla on behalf of the appellants:

(1) That by his order the learned Single Judge, who decided the two groups of writ petitions, intended to quash the entire scheme,

(2) That by reason of the order the whole scheme must be treated as bad, because there can be no partial scheme of nationalisation in respect of an area; and

(3) That the notification cannot be declared to be partially good and partially bad. These three contentions are practically different facets of the same argument urged before us.

7. It is contended that under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act a unitary scheme is contemplated to be framed and it is that scheme which is published and considered by the State Government and that scheme alone is, either with or without modifications, approved by the State Government. If that scheme is to be cancelled wholly or in part, the procedure prescribed under Section 68-E of the Act must be followed. No such procedure was followed, and the High Court having in effect held for the reasons set out in the first judgment of the learned Single Judge that the scheme was inoperative the appellants were entitled to the grant of permits. But the le