JUDGMENT K.N. Singh, J. - A Division Bench of this Court has referred this petition and the other three connected petitions to a larger Bench as it did not agree with the view of another Division Bench of this Court in Shashi Kant Rai v. Regional Transport Authority (AIR 1978 All 68). 2. On 13-12-1960 the State Transport Undertaking issued a notification under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) publishing a scheme for the exclusive plying of its stage carriage vehicles on five different routes of Agra region, namely, (1) Etah-Farrukhabad, (2) Etah-Daryaganj, (3) Farrukhabad-Shamshabad, (4) Etah-Ganjdundwara and (5) Farrukhabad-Kampil. The petitioners, who were permit-holders for plying their stage carriages on the routes filed objections to the Scheme. Their main objection was that the number of services proposed to be rendered on the routes in question was not specified in the notification published under Section 68-C of the Act, as a result of which the scheme was invalid. The hearing authority, acting on behalf of the State Government, approved the scheme under Section 68-D (2) of the Act by its order dated 27-4-1962, thereupon the State Government published the approved scheme in the gazette under its notification dated 1-4-1963 under Section 68-D (3) of the Act. The petitioners challenged the validity of the scheme before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution by means of writ petitions. A single Judge allowed the writ petitions on the finding that the rules of natural justice were not followed in the enquiry held by the hearing authority, as the petitioners were not afforded opportunity of hearing. The learned single Judge quashed the order of the hearing authority as well as the notification dated April 1, 1983, published under Section 68-D (3) of the Act and directed the hearing authority to hold a fresh enquiry and to give opportunity of hearing to the objectors. The judgment of the learned single Judge was affirmed in Special Appeal by a Division Bench of this Court. 3. In pursuance of the orders of this Court the hearing authority held enquiry afresh and afforded opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. On completion of enquiry the hearing authority approved the scheme by its order dated December 29, 1972. The judgment of the learned single Judge was affirmed in Special Appeal by a Division Bench of this Court. 3. In pursuance of the orders of this Court the hearing authority held enquiry afresh and afforded opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. On completion of enquiry the hearing authority approved the scheme by its order dated December 29, 1972. The State Government thereupon published the approved scheme in the official gazette dated December 24, 1977, under its notification dated November 8, 1977, in accordance with Section 68-D (3) of the Act. The approved scheme as well as the scheme under Section 68-C of the Act do not contain particulars of the services proposed to be rendered by the State Transport Undertaking on the routes in question. The petitioners have by means of these petitions challenged the validity of the approved scheme and also the order of the hearing authority approving the scheme on a number of grounds. The writ petitions came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court. On behalf of the petitioners it was urged before the Division Bench that the scheme suffers from defects as pointed out by this Court in State of U. P. v. Shashi Kant Rai ( AIR 1976 All 315 ) and further that the provisions of U. P. Act 27 of 1976 failed to amend Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act and as such the scheme continued to be invalid. Reliance was placed on the decision of another Division Bench of this Court in Shashi Kant Rai v. Regional Transport Authority (AIR 1978 All 68). The Bench hearing the writ petitions did not agree with the view taken by the Division Bench in AIR 1978 All 68. Therefore, it referred these petitions to a larger Bench and that is how these petitions have been heard by this Bench. 4. Before we consider the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is necessary to refer to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, and the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Act, 1976, No. 27 of 1976, hereinafter referred to as the Amending Act. 5. Chapter IV of the Act contains provisions for control of transport vehicles. These provisions regulate the fixation of strength on a route and the grant of permit to operators for plying their Vehicles on the routes determined by the transport authorities. 5. Chapter IV of the Act contains provisions for control of transport vehicles. These provisions regulate the fixation of strength on a route and the grant of permit to operators for plying their Vehicles on the routes determined by the transport authorities. A person holding a permit under the provisions of Chapter IV of the Act has a right to ply his vehicles on the route in respect of which permit is granted to him. Chapter IV-A contains special provisions relating to State Transport Undertaking. The provisions of Chapter IV-A override the provisions of Chapter IV and other laws. The provisions contained in Chapter IV-A provide for framing of scheme for operation of the vehicles of State Transport Undertaking to the complete or partial exclusion of other per-init-holders. Where a State Transport Undertaking is of the opinion that for purposes of providing efficient, adequate, economical and properly coordinated road transport services it is necessary in the public interest to provide road transport services to any area or route by it to the exclusion, complete or partial, of other persons, it may prepare a scheme, giving particulars of the nature of services proposed to be rendered. The scheme is required to be published in the official gazette under Section 68-C of the Act. Section 68-D (1) provides that on the publication of the scheme objections may be filed before the State Government by persons already providing transport facilities on the route or the area proposed to be covered by the scheme; by any association representing persons providing road transport facilities and by any local authority or police authority within whose jurisdiction the area or the route lies. The State Government or any person authorised by the State Government is required to consider the objections and after giving opportunity to the objectors it may approve or modify the scheme under sub-section (2) of Section 68-D of the Act. The scheme as approved is then published in tire official gazette by the State Government and thereupon it becomes final and it is called the "approved scheme", and the area or route to which it relates is called "notified route". The scheme as approved is then published in tire official gazette by the State Government and thereupon it becomes final and it is called the "approved scheme", and the area or route to which it relates is called "notified route". After a scheme has been approved and published it is obligatory for the Regional Transport Authority or the State Transport Authority to issue permits to the State Transport Undertaking for plying their vehicles on the notified route or area notwithstanding anything contained in Chapter IV of the Act. The effect of an approved scheme is that the transport authorities constituted under the Act have no power to issue any permit to private individuals for the notified route or area and they are required to cancel or modify the existing permits with a view to implement the scheme. 6. In State of U. P. v. Shashi Kant Rai ( AIR 1976 All 315 ) a Division Bench of this Court considered the validity of an approved scheme framed under Chapter IV-A of the Act. The Bench held that a scheme proposed under Section 68-C of the Act must contain the details or particulars of the road transport services proposed to be rendered by tire State Transport Undertaking as that would indicate the adequacy of the proposed service. In the absence of the particulars of the services proposed to be rendered the objectors would not be able to effectively file objection against the scheme proposed under Section 68-C of tire Act. The Bench quashed the scheme as published under Sections 68-C and 68-D (3) of the Act as it did not specify the particulars of the nature of service proposed to be rendered by the State Transport Undertaking. The effect of the Division Bench Judgment was that a number of schemes which had already been approved stood vitiated. In order to meet the situation the legislature intervened and the U. P. Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Act, 1976, was enacted. Sections 7, 8 and 16 of the Amending Act are as under: "7. Specification of number of services not essential requirement of Section 68-C or Section 68-D: Nothing contained in Section 68-C or Section 68-D of the principal Act shall be deemed to require or ever to have required a specification being made in an approved scheme of the number of services to be provided. 8. Specification of number of services not essential requirement of Section 68-C or Section 68-D: Nothing contained in Section 68-C or Section 68-D of the principal Act shall be deemed to require or ever to have required a specification being made in an approved scheme of the number of services to be provided. 8. This Act and orders thereunder to override Chapters IV and IV-A of the principal Act. The provisions of this Act and all orders made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in Chapter IV and Chapter IV-A of the principal Act or in any permit, scheme, notification or other instrument having effect by virtue of the provisions of the said Chapters. 16. Validation: Notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any court, any scheme prepared or published under Section 68-C or approved or modified under Section 68-D of the principal Act or purporting to have been prepared, published, approved or modified shall not be deemed to be or have been invalid on the ground of number of Service to be provided being not specified therein." 7. After the enforcement of the Amending Act the Regional Transport Authority, Varanasi, proceeded to take action for cancellation of the permits of the operators involved in Shashi Kant Rais case on the footing that the scheme stood validated by Sections 7 and 16 of the Amending Act. Shashi Kant Rai and other affected persons thereupon again filed a petition in this Court challenging the action of the Regional Transport Authority. The writ petition came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court, and there it was urged that notwithstanding the provisions of the Amending Act the scheme continued to remain invalid on account of defect in the notification issued under Section 68-C of the principal Act for its failure to specify the services proposed to be rendered under the scheme. The petitioners contention was accepted by the Division Bench in Shashi Kant Rai v. Regional Transport Authority (AIR 1978 All 68). The Bench held that Section 7 of the Amending Act validated an approved scheme and not a scheme as published under Section 68-C of the Act, therefore Section 7 failed to amend Section 68-C of the Act. The petitioners contention was accepted by the Division Bench in Shashi Kant Rai v. Regional Transport Authority (AIR 1978 All 68). The Bench held that Section 7 of the Amending Act validated an approved scheme and not a scheme as published under Section 68-C of the Act, therefore Section 7 failed to amend Section 68-C of the Act. The Bench further held: "An approved scheme can only be prepared under Section 68-D (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act after the provisions of Sections 68-C and 68-D (1) and (2) have been complied with. These provisions not having been complied with the approved scheme prepared under Section 68-D (3) is unenforceable." The above observations were made on the footing that the draft scheme prepared under Section 68-C required specification of number of services to be provided by the State Transport Undertaking and in the absence of the same, the scheme as prepared under Section 68-C would continue to be ineffective notwithstanding the provisions of Sections 7 and 16 of the Amending Act. 8. Section 7 lays down that nothing contained in Section 68-C or Section 68-D of the principal Act shall be deemed to require or ever to have required a specification being made of the number of services to be provided in an approved scheme. The section has been given retrospective effect. In substance Section 7 lays down that specification of the number of services to be provided by the State Transport Undertaking was never required to be mentioned in an approved scheme notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Section 68-C or Section 68-D o# the Act. No doubt, Section 7 does not expressly amend Section 68-C of the Act, but it amends Section 68-D expressly. The legislative intent is clear that notwithstanding anything contained in Section 68-C or Section 68-D of the Act, it is not necessary to specify the number of services to be provided in an approved scheme. Since the language of Section 7 is clear it is the duty of the court to give effect to the legislative intent and it is not the function of the Court to find fault to frustrate or defeat the purpose of the legislation. 9. In Shashi Kant Rais case (AIR 1978 All 68), tire Division Bench laid undue stress on the expression "in an approved scheme" occurring in Section 7 of the Amending Act. 9. In Shashi Kant Rais case (AIR 1978 All 68), tire Division Bench laid undue stress on the expression "in an approved scheme" occurring in Section 7 of the Amending Act. The Bench held that Section 7 merely laid down that in an approved scheme specification of number of sendees to be provided was not necessary, as the section amended Section 68-D of the Act but Section 68-C remained unamended as Section 7 does not refer to a scheme published under Section 68-C of the Act. We are unable to agree with the view taken by the Division Bench. A scheme proposed by the State Transport Undertaking under Section 68-C of the Act is in die nature of a draft scheme. The draft scheme does not operate as law and the State Transport Undertaking has no legal right to operate exclusively on a route or area in pursuance of a draft scheme. The scheme acquires statutory character only after it is approved under Section 68-D of the principal Act. What really matters is the approved scheme. For this reason the legislature referred to an approved scheme in Section 7 of the Amending Act. It must be noted that in Section 7 the legislature clearly laid down that notwithstanding anything contained in Section 68-C or Section 68-D of the Act the specification of number of services was not necessary to be mentioned in the scheme. No doubt Section 7 is not happily worded, but the section is clear enough which leaves no room for any doubt that specification of number of services was never necessary to be mentioned in the scheme. 10. During the course of arguments it was conceded that Section 88-D of the principal Act stood amended by Section 7 of the Amending Act, but, it was urged that Section 7 failed to achieve its purpose inasmuch as it failed to amend Section 68-C of the Act. The submission made was that Section 7 merely lays down that in an approved scheme it was never necessary nor it will ever be necessary to specify the particulars of the services proposed to be rendered by the State Transport Undertaking but it does not lay down that in a scheme published under Section 68-C of the Act it will not be necessary to give particulars of the nature of services proposed to be rendered on the route or area in question. Therefore, even after the enforcement of the Amending Act, the absence of particulars of services proposed to be rendered in the scheme published under Section 68-C of the Act would render it illegal. Since a scheme published under Section 68-C of the Act is the foundation for preparing a final scheme in the shape of an approved scheme, the scheme would be vitiated. We do not find any merit in the contention. Section 7 had placed an approved scheme beyond challenge on the ground of absence of particulars of the services proposed to be rendered Now it is not permissible to strike down an approved scheme on the said ground as the legislature has laid down in unequivocal terms that an approved scheme need not specify the services proposed to be rendered by the State Transport Undertaking notwithstanding the provisions of Sections 68-C and 68-D of the Act. When an approved scheme is beyond challenge on account of the provisions of Section 7 of the Amending Act, it does not stand to reason that the approved scheme would be rendered illegal on account of same defect in the scheme as published under Section 68-C of the Act. When the legislature has laid down that it was never necessary to specify particulars of services proposed to be rendered in an approved scheme under Section 68-D of the Act, how can the approved scheme be struck down on the ground of some defect in the scheme as proposed under Section 68-C of the Act. 11. While considering this question it must be kept in mind that a scheme proposed under Section 68-C of the Act is in the nature of a draft scheme which is liable to be modified by the hearing authority. If a scheme under Section 68-C does not contain the details of the services proposed to be rendered by the State Transport Undertaking, the hearing authority may modify the scheme and it may specify the number of services which the State Transport Undertaking would be required to render under the scheme. Such an approved scheme would have been in accordance to law even as it stood prior to the enforcement of the Amending Act. No approved scheme could be rendered invalid merely on account of the defect in the draft scheme published under Section 68-C of the Act. Such an approved scheme would have been in accordance to law even as it stood prior to the enforcement of the Amending Act. No approved scheme could be rendered invalid merely on account of the defect in the draft scheme published under Section 68-C of the Act. In Kondala Rao v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation ( AIR 1961 SC 82 ) the draft scheme published under Section 68-C of the Act did not specify the number of vehicles on the route. An objection to that effect was taken by the objectors before the hearing authority. The scheme was, however, modified by the hearing authority and the number of vehicles to be operated on each route was specified and thereupon the scheme was approved and published in the gazette. The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the approved scheme. 12. In Aswathanarayana v. State of Mysore ( AIR 1965 SC 1848 ) validity of an approved scheme was challenged on the ground that since the scheme as published under Section 68-C of the Act was defective the approved scheme stood vitiated. The Supreme Court repelled the contention and observed: "The fact that there was some defect in the draft scheme would in our opinion be not fatal if the approved scheme as it finally emerges after the objections have been heard and decided under Section 68-D is in accordance with what is required by Section 68-C. Nor do we think that it was not possible for objectors to raise the question of adequacy of service where only the maximum is specified. The approved scheme cannot in our opinion be struck down if it is in accordance with Section 68-C merely because there was some defect in the particulars supplied by the draft scheme." This aspect was considered by the Division Bench in Shashi Kant Rais case ( AIR 1976 All 315 ) also but the Bench observed that the details of the services which were required to be rendered by the State Transport Undertaking were not specified even in the approved scheme, therefore it declared the scheme invalid. Had the number of services been specified in the notification published under Section 68-D (3) of the Act, the Bench would not have struck down the scheme. Had the number of services been specified in the notification published under Section 68-D (3) of the Act, the Bench would not have struck down the scheme. It is thus clear that even under the law as it stood before the Amending Act, an approved scheme could not be rendered invalid merely on account of some defect in the draft scheme provided the defect stood removed in the approved scheme. Prior to the Amending Act, the hearing authority could remove the defect but now after the Amending Act that defect has been removed by the legislature itself. An approved scheme now need not specify the number of services to be rendered on the route. This is the effect of Section 7 of the Amending Act. 13. For the reasons stated above, we hold that in view of Section 7 of the Amending Act, the impugned' notification dated November 9, 1977, issued under Section 68-D (3) of the Act approving the scheme for the routes in question is not rendered invalid merely because the draft scheme published under Section 68-C of the Act does not specify particulars of the services proposed to' be rendered by the State Transport Undertaking on the routes in question. We further hold that the decision of this Court in Shashi Kant Rais case does not lay down the correct law. 14. Sri Section K. Dhaon, learned counsel for the petitioners, urged that the hearing authority approved the scheme without recording any finding that the scheme was efficient, economical and that it provided a properly coordinated road transport service. In our opinion, the petitioners contention is untenable. The hearing authority while exercising the powers of the State Government under Section 68-D (2) of the Act acts: as a quasi-judicial tribunal See Gullapalli Nageswara Rao v. Andhra Pradesh State Transport Corporation ( AIR 1959 SC 308 ). The purpose of the hearing is that the State Government has to satisfy itself that the opinion of the State Transport Undertaking formed under Section 68-C, namely, that the scheme is for the purpose of providing an efficient, adequate, economical and properly co-ordinated road transport services, is correct. The hearing authority is therefore to decide the objections raised by the objectors in a quasi-judicial manner on the basis of the evidence produced by the parties. The hearing authority is therefore to decide the objections raised by the objectors in a quasi-judicial manner on the basis of the evidence produced by the parties. For this reason the objectors have a right to produce evidence and the hearing authority is under a legal duty to give opportunity to the objectors to produce evidence, documentary or oral. See Malik Ram v. State of Rajasthan ( AIR 1961 SC 1575 ). After hearing the objectors, the hearing authority: may approve, modify or reject a scheme. If the hearing authority approves the scheme by a reasoned order, the order cannot be challenged on the ground that there is no express finding that the scheme provides an efficient, adequate, economical and properly co-ordinated road transport service. Section 68-D (3) of the Act does not require any express finding on these matters and as such even if no finding is recorded it would not invalidate the order of the hearing authority approving the scheme. See Capital Multi-purpose Co-operative Society v. State of Madhya Pradesh ( AIR 1967 SC 1815 ). Once the hearing authority approves the scheme it means that the scheme provides efficient, adequate, economical and properly co-ordinated road transport service and it cannot be challenged on the ground of absence of specific finding by the hearing authority on these questions. Moreover the hearing authority has in fact recorded findings on the aforesaid matters, in the instant cases. 15. Learned counsel then urged that the finding of the hearing authority that the scheme was efficient, adequate and properly co-ordinated is based on no evidence. The objectors produced thirteen witnesses. The State Transport Undertaking produced Sri V. P. Puri, Manager of the Corporation. The hearing authority relied upon the statement of Sri Puri and recorded findings that the State Transport Undertaking had means and resources to run adequate number of services on the routes in question and that the scheme provided an efficient, adequate, properly co-ordinated and economical transport service. The hearing authority rightly pointed out that the onus to prove that the scheme was not efficient, adequate or properly co-ordinated or economical lay on the objectors and since they had failed to discharge that burden the scheme could not be disapproved. The hearing authority rightly pointed out that the onus to prove that the scheme was not efficient, adequate or properly co-ordinated or economical lay on the objectors and since they had failed to discharge that burden the scheme could not be disapproved. We have gone through the statement of Sri V. P. Puri which is on the record of the writ petition and we find that his statement constitutes evidence which is sufficient to sustain the findings of the hearing authority. There is therefore no substance in the petitioners' contention. 16. In the result the petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed but there would be no order as to costs.