Case: Jeewan Nath Wahal and Jagat Nath Wahal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh &amp; Others

1. The State of Uttar Pradesh decided to nationalise thee route and published a scheme in that behalf under Sectionof the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. After hearing the objections of persons affected, the scheme was published in the Official Gazette of the State Government under Sections applied to the High Court at Allahabad for quashing the scheme.2. A Single Judge of the High Court, held that there were certain defects in the proceeding taken by the Government under Chapterof the Motor Vehicles Act in sanctioning the scheme and proceeded to order that "the Notification datedcould not stand so far as the 32 petitioners were concerned". He proceeded then tonotification indicates that it hits about 46 persons in all. The scheme as sanctioned ought not to be enforced against the present petitioners at least. The State Government may be left to enforce it, if it is so desired, against persons other than the presentlearned Judge then orderedState Government of Uttar Pradesh is directed not to enforce the Notification datedagainst the 32 petitioners. The State Government will be at liberty to hold a fresh enquiry under Sectionof the Motor Vehicles Act on the basis of the original proposal in accordance with law.Encouraged by the order made in the petitions filed by 32 petitioners, another batch of 18 transport operators applied to the High Court of Allahabad for quashing the scheme. The same learned Judge who had dealt with the original petitions heard those petitions and passed the orderreasons given in my judgment datedthese 18 petitions have also to be allowed in part. It is not necessary to interfere with the notification issued under Sectionof the Act. It will be sufficient if the Notification datedis quashed so far as the present 18 petitioners are concerned. These 18 petitions are disposed of accordingly. The State of U.P. is directed not to enforce the Notification datedof the Motor Vehicles Act against the present 18 petitioners.The two appellants in these appeals who did not hold at the relevant time any transport permits, applied onfor permits on the route covered by the scheme published onTheir applications were rejected by the Regional Transport Authority by order and the orders were confirmed in appeal.5. The writ petition filed against that order before the High Court of Allahabad challenging the rejection of the application for the grant of permits also did not meet with success. The appellants have appealed to this Court with special leave.

Reasoning:
It is contended that under Sectionof the Motor Vehicles Act a unitary scheme is contemplated to be framed and it is that scheme which is published and considered by the State Government and that scheme alone is, either with or without modifications, approved by the State Government.If that scheme is to be cancelled wholly or in part, the procedure prescribed under Sectionof the Act must be followed. No such procedure was followed, and the High Court having in effect held for the reasons set out in the first judgment of the learned Single Judge that the scheme was inoperative the appellants were entitled to the grant of permits. But the learned Judge, who decided the group of 32 petitions, was careful to observe in his judgment that the notification could not be enforced against the applicants before him. He did not purport to quash the scheme in its entirety. It is unnecessary to express any opinion on the question whether on the reasons given by him the entire scheme was liable to be quashed. It is sufficient to observe that he did not pass an order quashing the entire scheme.We are unable to hold that the learned Single Judge intended to quash the entire scheme. The express words used in the two judgments delivered by him did not indicate any such intention and it cannot be implied from the language used by him, nor are we able to hold that by prohibiting the enforcement of the scheme as against the two sets of petitioners, the scheme must be deemed to have becomewas held by this Court in Narayanappa case, AIR 1960 Supreme Court 1073 : 1960 (3) SCR 742     that for the purpose of protecting the guarantee of the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution a scheme framed under the Motor Vehicles Act is to be deemed law within the meaning of Article 13(3)(a) of the Constitution. But the argument advanced by Mr Chagla is that if we are satisfied that the scheme was declared invalid by the learned Single Judge in his previous judgment, we would be bound to give effect to that judgment, but, on a consideration of the order made by the learned Judge, we agree with the High Court from which this appeal is preferred that it was only intended to prohibit the enforcement of the scheme as against the two groups of petitioners, who had approached the High Court challenging the validity of the orders sanctioning the scheme.