( 1 ) MALIK, CJ. These applications have been filed on behalf of certain persons who own motor buses and carry passengers for hire on various routes in Uttar Pradesh. The applicants want appropriate relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. The applications can be grouped according to the routes over which the transport buses of the various bus-owners or transport companies were running.

( 2 ) CIVIL Misc. Cases Nos. 4 to 7, 71 to 98 and 133 to 140 of 1950 relate to the route khurja-Bulandshahr-Delhi. The applicants in these cases are represented by Mr. Gopal Swarup pathak. Civil Misc. Cases Nos. 8 to 70 of 1950 relate to Meerut-Delhi route and the applicants in these cases are also represented by Mr. Pathak.

( 3 ) CIVIL Misc. Cases Nos. 99, 100, 104 to 116 of 1950 relate to Garhmukteshwar-Hapur-Delhi route and the applicants in these cases are represented by Shri Alladi Krishnaswami and Mr. S. B. L. Gour.

( 4 ) CIVIL Misc. Cases Nos. 118, 119 and 120 of 1950 relate to buses running on the Mathura naujhil, Mathura-Kosi, Mathura-Barsana and Mathura-Aligarh roads and the applicants in these cases are represented by Mr. Brij Lal Gupta. Civil Misc. Case No. 142 of 1950 relates to Meerut division including Dehra Dun and Mussoorie and the applicant in this case is also represented by Mr. Brij Lal Gupta.

( 5 ) THERE are seven applications, Misc. Cases Nos. 170 to 176 of 1950, by bus-owners who had held permits for running buses inside the Jaunpur District. They are represented by Mr. S. N. Katju.

( 6 ) CIVIL Misc. Case No. 103 of 1950 relates to Agra-Shamsabad route, Civil Misc. Cases Nos. 117 and 123 to 129 of 1960 relate to Agra-Tantpur route, Civil Misc. Cases Nos. 121, 131 and 133 of 1950 relate to Moradabad-Sambhal route, Civil Misc. Case No. 122 of 1950 relates to moradabad-Sambhal, Chandpur-Bijnor routes and Civil Misc Case No. 130 of 1950 relates to moradabad-Sambhal and Moradabad-Chandausi routes and all these applicants are represented by Mr. P. C. Chaturvedi.

( 7 ) CIVIL Misc. Cases Nos. 145 and 148 of 1950 relate to Etawah-Mainpuri route, Civil Misc. Cases Nos. 147, 150, 153, 156, 157, 159, 161 and 162 of 1950 relate to various routes from etawah, Civil Misc. Case No. 143 of 1950 relates to Kishni-Bawar route and Civil Misc. Cases nos. 145, 151, 166 and 167 of 1950 relate to Etah-Farrukhabad routes, Civil Misc. Cases Nos. 144, 149, 152, 154, 158, 163, 164 and 165 of 1950 also relate to various routes from Etawah. All these applicants are represented by Mr. Gopi Nath Kunzru.

( 8 ) THE main argument in the case has been advanced by Mr. Gopal Swarup Pathak who has covered a very wide field in his arguments. Other counsel have mainly adopted Mr. Pathaks arguments.

( 9 ) IT may not be desirable at this stage to go into the details of each case as there are some differences in the facts, in the dates and in some other material particulars. The main arguments advanced by counsel on behalf of the applicants may be classified under the following heads: (1)That the applicants are bus-owners who run bus services and carry passengers for hire and they have an absolute right to carry passengers for hire on the high-way along the routes selected by them: (2) That though prior to the Constitution, the Regional Transport Authorities, appointed under the Motor Vehicles Act (IV [4] of 1939), could restrict the route or the number of buses, after 26-1-1950, the applicants have an absolute right to carry on their business and the Regional transport Authorities have no right to place any restrictions or refuse to issue permits. It is urged that some of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act which restrict the rights of the applicants have now become invalid as being opposed to the provisions of the Constitution: (3) That the regional Transport Authorities, in complete disregard of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles act, have been refusing to issue permanent permits (permanent permit meaning a permit for not less than three years and no

Click Here to Read the rest of this document