MUKERJI, J. :- These are 106 connected petitions under Article 226(1) of the Constitution of India. All these petitions raise more or less the same questions for decision - at any rate the main questions which fall for determination in these cases are the same. These are all petitions by persons who have been operating motor vehicles for gain on the public highways of the State. These petitioners had the necessary "permit" to operate their vehicles under the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939. The Uttar Pradesh Government has, by virtue of powers conferred upon it by the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Act, 1950 (U.P. Act No. II of 1951), hereinafter referred to as the impugned Act, in effect stopped some of the petitioners from plying their vehicles on the public highways and instead commenced plying vehicles of its own.

2. All the petitions have more or less sought common reliefs. The main relief sought is that a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued to opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2, namely, the Government of the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Minister of Transport, Uttar Pradesh, to withdraw the declaration made under Section 3 of the impugned Act and to withdraw certain notifications whereby they have stopped the vehicles of the petitioners and have substituted therefor their own vehicles. There is a specific prayer for a writ of mandamus as against the opposite parties directing them not to ply and operate the State Road Transport Services on any of the routes on which the petitioners ply their vehicles.

3. The main controversy in the case has centred round the States power to take over motor transport services of the State so as to run these services itself. This controversy has to be viewed in the light of some history. It la common knowledge that in recent years transport of passengers and goods by motor vehicles has grown in this country greatly. The nature of the country and its needs clearly appear suited to such a growth and consequently these services attracted the attention of private operators as also of the State which has always to bear in mind and keep an eye on the services that fall in the category of public utility services.

4. In 1914 the Indian Legislature passed a Motor Vehicles Act (Act VII of 1914). whereby it imposed certain conditions on individuals who possessed motor vehicles and who wished to use those vehicles on the public highways, In 1039 the Act of 1914 was largely altered. In the statement of objects and reasons of this Act it was stated that the Act of 1914, which had been made to suit the conditions of motor vehicle traffic at an early stage of its development, was no longer adequate to deal with the conditions which had come into existence on account of the rapid growth of motor transport in the country.

The framers of the 1939 Act visualized that in the interest of safety and public convenience as also for the development of a coordinated system of transport a much closer control was required. It was further visualized that it was necessary to have "power" by which it was possible to effectively regulate motor transport.

Before the Act of 1939 came on to the statute book the Government of India appointed a committee of enquiry in 1933 to investigate and report on the question of the desirability of coordinating road and rail traffic in the country. The committee made its report and its report indicated that it was in the vital interests of the community to have a scheme of co-ordination of road and rail traffic because of the unfair competition that subsisted between the transport services and because such competition was detrimental to the national interest.

5. Sometime in the year 1948 or so the State of Uttar Pradesh conceived the plan of operating State buses on some of the national highways of the State. The State first came into this service as a competitor with private operators, but later it attempted to acquire a monopoly of some of the routes by taking resort to certain provi