ORDER :- Messrs, Jagat Nath Wahal, Jeewan Nath Wahal and Mahabir Prasad Srivastava made applications before the State Transport Authority, Lucknow, for grant of stage carriage permits on Meerut-Delhi, an inter-State route. The State Transport Authority dismissed all the three applications mainly on the ground that the Meerut-Delhi was a notified route under the Motor Vehicles Act and as such no stage carriage permit could legally be granted to the said applicants. The order of the State Transport Authority was challenged in appeal by Jagannath Wahal, Jeewan Nath Wahal and Mahabir Prasad Srivastava before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, U. P. (hereinafter referred to as the Appellate Tribunal); By its order dated 27th February, 1973, the Appellate Tribunal allowed the three appeals and set aside the order of the State Transport Authority. It further directed the State Transport Authority to grant stage carriage permits to each of the three appellants. The Appellate Tribunal held that there was no valid nationalisation scheme in existence in respect of Meerut-Delhi route, consequently the route was not notified and therefore the stage carriage permits could legally be granted to the applicants under Chapter IV of the Motor Vehicles Act. The U. P. State Road Transport Corporation thereafter filed the present petition before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the order of the Appellate Tribunal.

2. Sri S. N. Kackar, the learned Advocate-General appearing for the petitioner contended that the order of the Appellate Tribunal was manifestly erroneous; it had no jurisdiction to issue direction for the grant of any stage carriage permits to the respondents on the Meerut-Delhi route as that route was a notified route and the State Road Transport Corporation had exclusive right in law to ply its vehicles on that route to the complete exclusion of other private persons. Sri S. C. Khare, learned counsel for respondents Nos. 5 to 7, strenuously urged that the route in question was not a notified route; therefore the Appellate Tribunal had jurisdiction to issue direction for the grant of stage carriage permits to the respondents. He disputed the petitioner' right to ply its vehicles exclusively on the Meerut-Delhi route. Thus the main controversy in the case is whether the route in question is a notified route and if so whether the U. P. Road Transport Corporation has got exclusive right to ply its vehicles on the route and the Appellate Tribunal had no jurisdiction to grant permits to private operators.

3. Before I deal with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, I consider it necessary to refer to the legislative history and the circumstances giving rise to the petitioners' claim that Meerut-Delhi route is a notified route. It appears that sometime before 1950 the Govenrment of Uttar Pradesh conceived the idea of running its own stage carriages on the various routes of the State. In pursuance of that policy it issued executive instructions to the transport authorities constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, directing them not to grant permanent permits or to renew them in favour of private operators as the State Government desired to have monopoly for plying its own vehicles namely the U. P. Government Roadways. In pursuance of those executive orders permits of some of the existing operators were cancelled while the renewal applications of others were rejected. The U. P. Government Roadways vehicles commenced their operation on a number of routes including Meerut-Delhi route. The affected operators filed a number of writ petitions before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the operation of the U. P. Government Roadways vehicles and the orders of the Transport Authorities creating monopoly in favour of the State through executive orders. The petitions were heard by a Full Bench of five Judges of this Court. The Full Bench in Moti