( 1 ) THE following points have been referred to me on account of difference of opinion between the learned Chief Justice end Singh J. , constituting the division. Bench, which heard the case :- (

i) Whether the petitioner has locus standi to claim a writ ? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case respondents 1, 2 and 3 should be restrained from enforcing the notification Annexure 'd' against the petitioner, leaving it open to the state Government to confirm the said notification and enforce it against the petitioner after giving opportunity of hearing him or his representative ?

( 2 ) BEFORE I proceed to record my opinion on the above points, it would be proper to state a few facts giving rise to this petition.

( 3 ) IN exercise of its powers under Section 43 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, Act no. 4 of 1939 (which for the sake of shortness will be hereinafter referred to as the 'act') the Government of Madhya Pradesh published the following draft of the proposed directions regarding fixing of fares of sage carriages in the M. P. Gazette dated 29-7-1975.

"no. 7-10-75-A-2-11. The following draft of the directions which the state Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 43 of fee Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (IV of 1939), and having regard to the provisions of Clauses a) to (d) of the said subsection and in partial modification of the direction referred to in the notification No. 7-32-73-A-2-11, dated the 6th November 1973 issued in this respect proposes to issue to the State Transport Authority regarding the fixing of fares for stage carriages, is published as required by the proviso to he said sub-section for the information of all persons likely to be affected thereby and notice is hereby given that the said draft will be taken into consideration on the expiry of one month from the date of publication of this notice in the Madhya pradesh Gazette : any objection or suggestion which may be received by the special Secretary to the Government, Madhya Pradesh, home Department, Bhopal from any person with respect to the said draft before the expiry of the period specified above will be considered by the State Government. "

( 4 ) IN response to the notice 'chhatarpur District Transport Operator's association' of which the petitioner is also a member submitted an objection on 25-8-1975 to the Special Secretary, Government of M. P. It was signed by surendra Mohan Chaurasia as President of the Association and also by 24 other operators including the petitioner. It further appears that in continuation of the above objection the petitioner submitted another application dated 7-9-1975 to the Chief Minister, Government of M. P. asking for an opportunity to be heard before finally issuing the notification. A copy of this application was also sent to the Special Secretary (Home) Government of Madhya Pradesh.

( 5 ) THE petitioner's grievance is that no authority was named by the government of M. P. for deciding the objection nor was he given an opportunity of being board, but the Government issued the final notification on 18-9-1975. It was submitted that the notification has been issued in violation of the proviso to Section 43 (1) of the Act and is consequently void and liable to be quashed.

( 6 ) THE petition was opposed by the Government of Madhya Pradesh inter alia on the ground that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the petition. The opposite party has also contended that the provisions of Section 43 (1) of the act had been duly complied with and that in any view of the matter, the petitioner was not entitled to any relief in the circumstances of the present case. Singh, J. held that the draft of the proposed direction (reproduced above)did not specify any date for hearing of the representatives of the interests affected and that it also did not name the officer who was to hear the representatives of the interests affected. In this connection he further held that

"oppo