# RASID JAVED & ORS. ETC. ETC v. STATE OF U.P. & ANR. ETC. ETC - **Citation:** [2010] 7 S.C.R. 535 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 2010-07-05 - **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 5951 of 2002 - **Bench:** R.V. Raveendran, R.M. Lodha - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/rasid-javed-ors-etc-etc-v-state-of-u-p-anr-etc-etc-26926 - **Pages:** 34 ## Headnote Motor Vehicle Act, 1988: A B s. 102(1) - Cancellation or modification of scheme - c Inter-state route - Saharanpur-Delhi route and other routes - 1993 Scheme whereby the entire Saharanpur-Delhi route . became fully nationalized for exclusive operation by State Transport Undertakings - Proposal to modify the 1993 Scheme by State Government - Issuance of Notification 0 dated 16.04.1999 uls. 102(1) - Objections invitf:3d and heard by Hearing Authority - Hearing Authority approving the proposed modification that private operators be allowed to ply their vehicles - However, State Government issued Notification dated 15.04.2000 u/s. 102(1) rlw s. 21 of the 1897 Act, to rescind Notification dated 16.04.1999 - Validity of - E Held: Notification dated 15. 04. 2000 is valid and does not suffer from any legal flaw - There was no impediment for State Government in exercising its power to rescind the Notification dated 16.04.1999 since the order df Hearing Authority cannot be treated as order of State Government u/s. 102(1)- General F Clauses Act, 1897 - s. 21. s. 102 - Cancellation or modification of scheme - Extent of authority to Hearing Authority - Held: Delegatee must confine his activity within four corners of powers vested in him G and if he acts beyond that, his action cannot have any legal sanction unless ratified by de/egator - Distinction must be maintained where hearing authority is empowered by State Government to hear objections and approve proposed 535 H 536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 7 S.C.R. A modification or modify the approved sc;heme and a case where it is authorized to hear objections relating to proposed • modification to the approved scheme - On facts, Hearing Authority not authorized to approve the proposed modification or modify the approved scheme - Order of Hearing Authority s being in excess of authority given to him, cannot be construed as final order of approval uls. 102 (1). Permit granted to appellant relating to Saharanpur-Delhi route - Status of appellant's permit - Held: Said permits related to routes which overlapped Delhi-Saharanpur notified C route - By the 1959 Scheme and 1993 Scheme, entire Saharanpur-Delhi route became fully nationalized for exclusive operation by State Transport Undertakings and no private operator could operate on the said route - Regional Transport Authority cannot either renew permit of such private D operators or give any fresh permit in respect of route which overlaps notified route - Thus, appellants' permits stood cancelled. Motor Vehicles Act, 1939: s. 68 C and 680 - Publication E of a scheme of road transport service by State Transport Undertakings - Effect of - Held: No person other than STU may operate on the notified area or notified route except as provided in the scheme itself. General Clauses Act, 1897: s. 21 - Invocation of.:.. Held: F Authority which has power to issue notification has undoubted power to rescind or modify the notification in the like manner - On facts, there was no impediment for State Government in exercising its power uls. 102 of the 1988 Act rlw s. 21 to rescind the Notification dated 16. 04. 1999 - Order of Hearing G Authority was not an order of approval uls.102(1) of the 1988 Act - Power of State Government to rescind Notification dated 16. 04. 1999 did not get exhausted - Motor Vehicles Act, 1.988 - s. 102(1). H The inter-State route of Saharanpur-Delhl became a RASID JAVED & ORS. ETC. v. STATE OF U.P. & . 537 ANR. ETC. notified route under the 1959 Scheme. It was provided in A the Scheme that the persons .other than the State Transport Undertaking (STU) would not be permitted in . plying any road transport service on the said route or portion thereof except as stated therein. The private operators challenged the Scheme. The H.igh Court B directed the State G'overnment not to enforce the 1959 Scheme against the said operators. This Court in * Jeewan Nath Wahal's case upheld the order of High Court. Thereafter, pursuant to the decision in ## Text _Characters 0–39,770 of 62,091. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39770 for what follows._ [2010] 7 S.C.R. 535 RASID JAVED & ORS. ETC. ETC. V. STATE OF U.P. & ANR. ETC. ETC. (Civil Appeal No. 5951 of 2002) JULY 5, 2010 [R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] Motor Vehicle Act, 1988: A B s. 102(1) - Cancellation or modification of scheme - c Inter-state route - Saharanpur-Delhi route and other routes - 1993 Scheme whereby the entire Saharanpur-Delhi route . became fully nationalized for exclusive operation by State Transport Undertakings - Proposal to modify the 1993 Scheme by State Government - Issuance of Notification 0 dated 16.04.1999 uls. 102(1) - Objections invitf:3d and heard by Hearing Authority - Hearing Authority approving the proposed modification that private operators be allowed to ply their vehicles - However, State Government issued Notification dated 15.04.2000 u/s. 102(1) rlw s. 21 of the 1897 Act, to rescind Notification dated 16.04.1999 - Validity of - E Held: Notification dated 15. 04. 2000 is valid and does not suffer from any legal flaw - There was no impediment for State Government in exercising its power to rescind the Notification dated 16.04.1999 since the order df Hearing Authority cannot be treated as order of State Government u/s. 102(1)- General F Clauses Act, 1897 - s. 21. s. 102 - Cancellation or modification of scheme - Extent of authority to Hearing Authority - Held: Delegatee must confine his activity within four corners of powers vested in him G and if he acts beyond that, his action cannot have any legal sanction unless ratified by de/egator - Distinction must be maintained where hearing authority is empowered by State Government to hear objections and approve proposed 535 H 536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 7 S.C.R. A modification or modify the approved sc;heme and a case where it is authorized to hear objections relating to proposed • modification to the approved scheme - On facts, Hearing Authority not authorized to approve the proposed modification or modify the approved scheme - Order of Hearing Authority s being in excess of authority given to him, cannot be construed as final order of approval uls. 102 (1). Permit granted to appellant relating to Saharanpur-Delhi route - Status of appellant's permit - Held: Said permits related to routes which overlapped Delhi-Saharanpur notified C route - By the 1959 Scheme and 1993 Scheme, entire Saharanpur-Delhi route became fully nationalized for exclusive operation by State Transport Undertakings and no private operator could operate on the said route - Regional Transport Authority cannot either renew permit of such private D operators or give any fresh permit in respect of route which overlaps notified route - Thus, appellants' permits stood cancelled. Motor Vehicles Act, 1939: s. 68 C and 680 - Publication E of a scheme of road transport service by State Transport Undertakings - Effect of - Held: No person other than STU may operate on the notified area or notified route except as provided in the scheme itself. General Clauses Act, 1897: s. 21 - Invocation of.:.. Held: F Authority which has power to issue notification has undoubted power to rescind or modify the notification in the like manner - On facts, there was no impediment for State Government in exercising its power uls. 102 of the 1988 Act rlw s. 21 to rescind the Notification dated 16. 04. 1999 - Order of Hearing G Authority was not an order of approval uls.102(1) of the 1988 Act - Power of State Government to rescind Notification dated 16. 04. 1999 did not get exhausted - Motor Vehicles Act, 1.988 - s. 102(1). H The inter-State route of Saharanpur-Delhl became a RASID JAVED & ORS. ETC. v. STATE OF U.P. & . 537 ANR. ETC. notified route under the 1959 Scheme. It was provided in A the Scheme that the persons .other than the State Transport Undertaking (STU) would not be permitted in . plying any road transport service on the said route or portion thereof except as stated therein. The private operators challenged the Scheme. The H.igh Court B directed the State G'overnment not to enforce the 1959 Scheme against the said operators. This Court in * Jeewan Nath Wahal's case upheld the order of High Court. Thereafter, pursuant to the decision in **Shri Chand's case, the UPSRTC published a draft scheme on February c · 13, 1986 for 39 routes: Saharanpur-Delhi and others. While the said draft scheme was pending, the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was repealed and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 came into force. Subsequently, some operators were granted permits for Saharanpur to Ghaziabad via 0 Shahdara routes. The said grant of permits wa~ challenged in ***Ram Krishna Verma's case and it was held that the nationalization of Saharanpur - Delhi route by the 1959 Scheme is operative to the total exclusion of every operator except UPSRTC and 50 operators whose objections were upheld by the High Court. The permits E granted to the private operators were quashed. Thereafter, the competent authority approved the 1986 draft Scheme and directed the same to be published. On May 29, 1993, the approved scheme-1993 Scheme was published in the Gazette. F In the Notification published on April 1~, 1999 under section 102(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the State Government proposed to modify the scheme notified on May 29, 1993 by providing that permit holders shall be G allowed to operate their buses along with the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC) on the said route provided they got their permits countersigned by State of Haryana for plying their buses in that State. Objections were invited. The Hearing Authority•Z, .H ~ 538 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [201 O] 7 S.C.R. A Special Secretary and Additional Legal Remembrancer heard the affected parties. It passed the Order dated October 11, 1999 that proposed modification be approved-private operators be allowed to ply their vehicle. However, the State Government by a Notification B dated April 15, 2000 in exercise of the powers under section 102 of 1988 Act read with section 21 of General Clauses Act, 1897 rescinded the Notification dated April 16, 1999. The private operators filed writ petition questioning the Notification dated April 15, 2000 issued c by the State of U.P. rescinding the earlier Notification dated April 16, 1999. The writ petitions were dismissed. Hence these appeals. Dismissing the appeals, the Court o HELD: 1. The Notification dated April 15, 2000 is valid and does not suffer from any legal flaw. [Para 44] [568C-D] 2. The permit granted to the appellants related to routes which overlapped the Delhi-Saharanpur notified E route. [Para 28] [559-B] The effect of publication of a scheme under Section 68D: 3. Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 makes special provisions relating to the State Transport F Undertakings (STUs). Section 68-C provides for preparation and publication of scheme of road transport service by an STU. The objections to the draft scheme ·published under section 68-C may be filed under section 68-D. Sub-section (2) of section 68-D provides that the · G State Government after considering the objections and hearing the objectors and the STU may approve or modify the scheme. Sub-section (3) of section 68-D provides that the scheme as approved or modified under sub-section (2) shall be published in the Official Gazette H. by the State Government and the same shall th~n RASID JAVED & ORS.· ETC. v. STATE OF U.P. & 539 ANR. ETC. become final and called 'approved scheme'. Once the A scheme has been published under sub-section (3) of section 68-D, section 68-FF imposes restriction on grant of permits in respect of notified area or notified route. From these provisions, it is apparent that once a scheme is published under section 68-D in relation to any area or B route or portion thereof, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial of other persons or otherwise, no person other than the STU may operate on the notified area or notified route except as provided in the scheme itself. [Para 30] [559-F-H; 500-A-B] c Adarsh Travels Bus Service and Anr. v. State of U.P. and ·Ors. (1985) 4 SCC 557; Mysore State Road Transport Corporation v. Mysore State Transport Appellate Tribunal (1974) 2 SCC 750; H.C. Narayanappa and Ors. v. State of Mysore and Ors. (1960) 3 SCR 742; Ram Krishna Verma and D Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. (1992) 2 sec 620, relied on. The status of appellants' permits 4.1. The Saharanpur-Delhi route became a notified route under the 1959 Scheme. The Saharanpur-Delhi E route on its nationalization stood frozen under the 1959 Scheme against everyone except 50 operators. The draft scheme published on February 13, 1986 was confined to those 50 operators alone and not to other pri~ate operators. By the 1993 Scheme, Saharanpur-Delhi route F stood frozen against 50 operators as well. The effect of these two schemes (1959 Scheme and 1993 Scheme)~ thus, has been that the. entire Saharanpur-Delhi route\ became fully nationalized for the exclusive operation by the STU i.e., UPSRTC and no private operator could G operate on the said route. Thus, the Regional Transport Authority cannot either renew the permit of such private operators or give any fresh permit in respect of a route which overlaps the notified route, the appellants' permits stood cancelled and in any case these permits lost their H 540 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 7 S.C.R. A legal significance and sanctity. [Para 33] [561-A-G; 562A] 4.2. The whole exercise undertaken by the State Government under sub-section (1) of section 102 of 1988 Act proposing to modify the 1993 Scheme relating to 8 Saharanpur-Delhi notified route was misconceived as the permits specified in that Notification did not exist in law. The finding of the High Court that the modification proposal dated April 16, 1999 proceeded on the misconception that the appellants were holding permits C on the concerned route cannot be said to be unjustified. Moreover, in the absence of any proposal to modify the 1959 Scheme, the modification proposed in the 1993 Scheme vide Notification dated April 16, 1999 was meaningless. The submission that the 1959 Scheme D merged in the. 1993 Scheme has no merit. The 1959 Scheme was approved under 1939 Act and even after repeal of 1939 Act by 1988 Act, the State Government was competent to prepare fresh scheme by following the procedure contemplated In sections 99 and 100 or modify E that scheme under section 102 of the 1988 Act but the proposed modification published in the Notification on Aprll 16, 1999 does not seek to modify the 1959 scheme at all. Since the Notification dated April 16, 1999 Is, ex facie, misconceived and meaningless as regards F Saharanpur-Delhi route, the proceedings taken pursuant thereto by the Hearing Authority and his decision dated October 11, 1999 also have no legal effect. [Para 33] [562A-F] * Jeewan Nath Wahal v. State Transport Appellate G Tribunal (C.A. No.1616 of 1968) decided by S.C. on 03.04.1968; **Shri Chand v. Govt. of U.P. Lucknow and Ors. Citizen Council for Public Service v. Govt. of U. P. and Anr. (1985) 4 SCC169; ***Ram Krishna Verma and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. (1992) 2 sec 620; Nisar Ahmad and Ors . . H v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1994 Suppl. (3) SCC 460; Gajraj . . . RASID JAVED & ORS. ETC. v. STATE OF U.P. & 541 ANR. ETC. Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. (2001) 5 SCC 762, A referred to. Section 102 of the 1988 Act and the extent of authority to the Hearing Authority 5.1. A close look at section 102 of the Motor Vehicles B Act, 1988 would make it manifestly clear that modification of the approved scheme may be done by the State Government in the public interest after giving opportunity of being heard in respect of proposed modification to the STU and the persons likely to be affected by the C proposed modification. The modification proposed is required to be published in the Official ~azette and in one of the newspapers in the regional languages circulating in the concerned area under section 102(2). It was submitted that in the proposed modification published in D the Official Gazette on April 16, 1999, the authority to hear the objections/representations was given to Z-Special Secretary and Additional Legal Remembrancer and the said Hearing Authority after hearing the objections of the affected persons and· the UPSRTC approved the E proposed modification and rejected the objections received in this regard and the approval by the Hearing Authority of the proposed modification by his order dated October 11, 1999 is the approval of the State Government. It cannot be said that the order dated October 11, 1999 of the Hearing Auth;>rity approving the proposed modification published in the Official Gazette dated April 16, 1999 is an order of the State Government modifying F the approved scheme of 1993 under section 102(1) of the 1988 Act because Z was given authority to hear the representations received by the State Government to the .G proposeq modification but no authority was given to him to approve the proposed modification or modify the approved scheme. The Notification dated April 16, 1999 does not empower the Hearing Authority to approve or modify the scheme; he has only been empowered to heu · H 542 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 7 S.C.R. A the objections. That a person who hears must decide and that divided responsibility is destructive of the concept of judicial hearing is too fundamental a proposition to be doubted. But based on such principle the limited authority of hearing given to the Hearing Authority by the State B Government cannot be treated as enlarged in its scope. A delegatee must confine his activity within four corners of the powers in vested in him and if he has acted beyond that, his action cannot have any legal sanction unless ratified by the delegator. [Para 35) [563-H; 564-A-H; 565C A] Gullapalli Nageswara Rao and Ors. v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. AIR 1959 SC 308, referred to. 0 5.2. A distinction must be maintained where the hearing authority is empowered by the State Government to hear objections and approve the proposed modification or modify the approved scheme and a case where the hearing authority is authorized to hear the E objections/representations relating to the proposed modification to the approved scheme. In the latter case, the authority delegated to the Hearing Authority is limited and he is not authorized to approve the proposed modification or modify the approved scheme. The instant case falls in the latter category and accordingly the order F of the Hearing Authority dated October 11, 1999 is in excess of the authority given to him and cannot be construed as a final order of approval under section 102 (1) of the 1988 Act. Whether such limited authority of hearing to the Hearing Authority makes any legal sense G is an aspect for consideration by the State Government. H Suffice, however, to say that it was not open for the Hearing Authority to approve the proposed modification or modify the proposed scheme. [Para 36) [565-B-E] RASID JAVED & ORS. ETC. v. STATE OF U.P. & 543 ANR. ETC. Invocation of Section 21 of General Clauses Act : whether A valid 6.1. Having held that the order of the Hearing Authority dated October 11, 1999 is in excess of the authority given to him and that the said order has no legal 8 effect, there was no impediment for the State Government in exercising its power under section 102 of the 1988 Act read with section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 to rescind the Notification dated April 16, 1999. [Para 37] [565-F-G] Kam/a Prasad Khetan and Anr. v. Union or India AIR 1957 SC 676, referred to. c 6.2. Under section 21 of the General Clauses Act, an authority which has the power to issue a notification has the undoubted power to rescind or modify the notification D in the like manner. In the instant case, there is no doubt that the Notification dated April 15, 2000 has been made in the same manner as the earlier Notification dated April 16, 1999. Since the order of the Hearing Authority dated October 11, 1999 is not an order of approval under E section 102(1) of the 1988 Act and cannot be treated as · such, the power of the State Government to rescind the Notification datea April 16, 1999 did not get exhausted. The submission that the draft Notification dated April 16, 1999 merged in the order dated October 11, 1999 is F fallacious and devoid of any substance. [Para 40] [566E-G] 6.3. It cannot be said that even otherwise the material on record demonstrated that the order of the modificatio·n dated October 11, 1999 was approved by the G Principal Secretary of the Department and, thus, there was an approval by the State Government. Except the decision of the Hearing Authority dated October 11, 1999 there is nothing on record to conclude that the State ~overnment had approved the proposed modification as H 544 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 7 S.C.R. A notified on April 16, 1999. Even if it is assumed that an executive action not expressed to be made in the name of the Governor as contemplated under Article 166(1) of the Constitution may not vitiate such action as nullity. [Para 41] [566-H; 567-A-C] B G.4. The non-compliance with the provisions of either of clauses of Article 166 would lead to the result that order in question would lose the protection which it would otherwise enjoy had the proper mode for expression and authentication been adopted, but then there has to be C some formal order by the State Government under section 102(1) of the 1988 Act. Moreover, there is nothing on record even to indicate that the order dated October 11, 1999 of the Hearing Authority was communicated to the appellants or any of the affected parties. The order D dated October 11, 1999 is not an order as contemplated under Section 102 (1) of the 1988 Act by the State Government approving the modification proposed in the Notification dated April 16, 1999. [Para 41] [567-C-E] E Dattatraya Moreshwar Pangarkar v. The State of Bombay and Ors, (1952) 1 SCR 612, relied on. 6.5. The order of the Hearing Authority dated October 11, 1999 cannot be treated as an order of the State - Government under section 102(1) of the 1988 Act. [Para F 42] [567-F-G] 6.6. The submission that the opportunity of hearing was required to be given to the appellants before issuance of Notification dated April 15, 2000 has no merit G since this submission is founded on the premise that the order of-the Hearing Authority dated October 11, 1999 is the order of the State Government. What section 21 of the General Clauses Act requtres is that the authority empowered to issue notification must exercise its power to rescind such notification in the like manner. The H Notification dated April 15, 2000 has been made in the RASID JAVED & ORS. ETC. v. STATE OF U.P. & 545 ANR. ETC. ~, same manner as the earlier Notification dated April 16, A 1999. [Para 43] [567-G-H; 568-A-B] Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr. (197 4) 2 SCC 831; Capital Multi-purpose Co-operative Society Bhopal and Ors. v. State of M.P. and Ors. (1967) 3 SCR 329; A. 8 Sanjeevi Naidu, Etc. v. State of Madras and Anr. (1970) 1 . SCC 443; Mis. Nehru Motor Transport Co-operative Society 'Ltd. and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. AIR 1963 SC 1098; Afsar /ahan Begum (Smt) and Ors. 11. State Of M.P. and Ors. (1996) 8 SCC 38; C.P.C. Motor Service, Mysore v. c State of Mysore and Anr. AIR 1966 SC 1661; Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Ashrafulla Khan and Ors. (2002) 2 sec 560, referred to. Case Law Reference: (1985) 4 SCC169 Referred to. D Para 11,12, 33, (1992) 2 sec 620 Referred to. ~ara 14, 15, 16, 23, 32,33 (1974) 2 sec 831 Referred to. Para 21 E (1967) 3 SCR 329 Referred to. Para 21 (1970) 1 sec 443 Referred to. Para 21 AIR 1959 SC 308 Referred to. Para 21, 35 F AIR 1963 SC 1098 Referred to. Para 21 (1996) 8 sec 38 Referred to. Para 26 / AIR 1966 SC 1661 Referred to. Para 26 (2002) 2 sec 560 . Referred to. Para 26 G (1985) 4 sec 557 Relied on. Para 30 (1974) 2 sec 150 Relied on. Para 31 (1960) 3 SCR 742 Relied on. Para 32 H 546 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 7 S.C.R A 1994 Suppl.(3) B SCC 460 Referred to. (2001) 5 SCC 762 Referred to. AIR 1957 SC 676 Referred to. (1952) 1 SCR 612 Relied on. Para 33 Para 33 Para 39 Para 41 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5951 of 2002. From the Judgment & Order dated 23.4.2002 of the High C Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24070 of 2000. WITH D C.A. Nos. 4894, 4895 of 2010. Dinesh Dwivedi, Nagendra Rai, P.N. Gupta for the Appellants. Ratnakar Dash, Shail Kr. Dwivedi, Addi. A.G., Raj Kumar E Gupta, Rajeev Kr. Dubey, Kamlendra Mishra, Vandana Mishra, Pramod Swarup, Rani Chhabra, Garima Prashad, Neha Goyal for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.M. LODHA, J. 1. Delay condoned and leave granted in F SLP(C) No.820 of 2003. Leave also granted in SLP (C) No. 21707 of 2002. The applicants in the I.As. for impleadment are allowed to intervene. G H Introduction 2. Five writ petitions by various operators came to be filed before High Court of Judicature at Allahabad questioning the Notification dated April 15, 2000 issued by the State of U.P. rescinding the earlier Notification dated April 16, 1999 and for RASID JAVED & ORS. ETC. v. STATE OF U.P. & 547 ANR. ETC. [R.M. LODHA, J.] consequential reliefs. The Division Bench of Allahabad High A Court heard these writ petitions together and by a common judgment dated April 23, 2002 dismissed all the writ petitions. It is from this common judgment that these three appeals by special leave arise. Facts 3. The brief facts in relation to these appeals may be set out first. A. Appeal by Rasid Javed and others B c 4. The appellants in this appeal claim that they have been operators on Saharanpur-Karnal route (inter-State route) via Jandhera - Rampur - Gangoh - New Yamuna Bridge. In the Notification published on April 16, 1999 under Section 102(1) 0 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the 1988 Act'), the State Government proposed to modify the scheme notified on May 29, 1993 by providing that permit holders bearing Nos. 168/94, 169/94. 170/94, 171/94, 172/94, 173/94, 222/94, 233/ 94, 23/95, 24/95, 25/95, 739/89, 242/94, 764/90, 787/90, 772/ 90, 800/90 and 784/90 shall be allowed to operate their buses E along with the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC) on Saharanpur-Karnal route (via Jandhera-RampurGangoh-New Yamuna Bridge) provided that they get their permits counter-signed by State of Haryana for plying their buses in that State. By the said Notification, objections were F invited from the UPSRTC and the persons likely to be affected by the proposed modification and Shri Zamirruddin, Special Secretary and Additional Legal Remembrancer, Uttar Pradesh was appointed Hearing Authority to hear and decide the objections that may be received. Pursuant to the said G Notification, objections were received and the Hearing Authority after hearing the affected parties held in its Order dated October 11, 1999 that proposed modification be approved, i.e. private operators be allowed to ply their vehicles. According to H 548 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 7 S.C.R. A the appellants, they are covered by the permits mentioned at SI. No. 1 [column 4 - (c)(iii)] of the Schedule to the Notification dated April 16, 1999. B 8. Appeal by Masood Ahmad and others 5. The appellants in this appeal claim to be permit holders in respect of Saharanpur-Loni route via Shamli-BaghpatMarginal Bandh Road - ISBT Delhi. According to them, they are covered by SI. No.1 [column 4 - (c)(i)] of the Schedule to the Notification dated April 16, 1999. By the said Notification, C the approved scheme dated May 29, 1993 was sought to be modified and it was proposed to allow these operators to operate their buses along with the UPSRTC on SaharanpurLoni via Shamli-Baraut-Baghpat-Marginal Bandh Road - ISBT Delhi route. D C. Appeal by Raghunandan Goyal and Others 6. The appellants claim to have been granted inter-State permits by the State Transport Authority (STA), Uttar Pradesh for an inter-State route known as Meerut-Chandigarh via BarautE Shamli-Gangoh-Saharanpur-Sarsawa-Yamuna Nagar-Ambala. Their case is that in the draft modification published in the Notification dated April 16, 1999, their permits are mentioned at SI. No. 1 [column 4 - (c)(ii)] of the Schedule thereof. By the said modification, it was proposed to allow these operators to F operate their buses along with the UPSRTC on MeerutChandigarh via Baraut-Shamli-Gangoh-Saharanpur-SarsawaYamuna Nagar-Ambala route provided that the permit holders get their permits counter-signed by the State Government of Haryana for plying their buses in that State. G H f>aharanpur-Delhi route (the 1959 Scheme) and previous litigation 7. On February 26, 1959, a draft scheme was published under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 ('the 1939 RASID JAVED & ORS. ETC. v. STATE OF U.P. & 549 ANR. ETC. [R.M. LODHA, J.] Act' for short) in respect of the inter-State route viz; Saharanpur A - Delhi proposing to authorize the State Transport Undertaking (STU) of Uttar Pradesh to operate stage carriages on the said route to the exclusion of all other operators. 8. On September 29, 1959 the State Government 8