JAGDISH SAHAI, J. : This writ petition has come to us on a reference made by our brother Pathak on 5th May 1965.

2. The petitioner carries on the business of running stage carriages on hire under the name and style of Jain Transport and General Trading Company, and held two permits for plying his stage carriages on the Mathra-Aligarh route. There were some other operators also on this route. The permits of all the operators were to expire on 5th August 1957, but before that date could arrive, the State of Uttar Pradesh nationalised the aforesaid route (hereinafter referred to as the route) under the provisions of the U. P. Road Transport Services (Development) Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Some compensation was offered to the petitioner and the others, which they did not accept, with the result that under the provisions of S. 11(5) of the Act, reference was made to the District Judge, Agra, by the Transport Commissioner, U.P., who, on 2-9-1964, transferred all of them for decision to the Court of the Additional District Judge. The petitioner and the others made application on 7-9-1964 before the District Judge, Agra, for recalling the cases from the Court of the Additional District Judge to his own. Those applications were rejected by the District Judge, Agra, by means of the order, dated 26-9-1964. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition in this Court and prayed that the order of the District Judge, Agra, dated 2-9-1964 be quashed. It is also prayed that a writ of mandamus be issued commanding the District Judge, Agra, to recall the petitioner's case from the Court of the Additional District Judge, Agra, to his own Court. In addition there is the usual prayer for the issue of any other writ, order or direction that this Court may deem fit to issue.

3. When this writ petition came up for bearing before our brother Pathak, the only submission that was made on behalf of the petitioner before him was that the reference could not be heard by the Additional District Judge and that the District Judge alone was competent to hear it. Considering that the question was of general importance, Pathak, J. referred the case to a Division Bench.

4. Mr. S.C. Khare, who has appeared for the petitioner before us, has confined himself to the same submission that he made before Pathak, J. He contends that the words 'District Judge', occurring in S. 11(5) of the Act cannot include an Additional District Judge because the District Judge is a persona designata for the purpose of that provision and is not referred to by his office. Section 11 of the Act reads :--

"11(1) Where in pursuance of the Scheme published under S. 8 any existing permit granted under Chap IV of the Motor Vehicles Act, the route or routes covered by it are curtailed 1939, is or is deemed to have been cancelled or are deemed to have been curtailed, the permit-holder shall, except in cases where transfer of the permit has been agreed to under Sub-S. (2) of S. 5, be entitled to receive and be paid such compensation by the State Government for and in respect of the premature cancellation of the permit or, as the case may be, for curtailment of the route or routes covered by the permit as may be determined in accordance with the principles specified in Sch. I.

(2) The compensation payable under this section shall be due as from the date of order of cancellation of the permit or curtailment of the route covered by the permit.

(3) There shall be paid by the Stale Government on the amount of compensation determined under Sub-S. (1) interest at the rate of two and one-half per cent from the date of order of cancellation or curtailment of route to the date of determination of compensation as aforesaid.

(4) The compensation payable under this section shall be given in cash.

(5) The amount of compensation to be given in accordance with the provisions of Sub-S. (2) shall be determined by the Transport Commissioner and shall be offered to the permit-holder in fu