JUDGMENT K.N. Singh, J. - By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the four petitioners who are per-mit-holders for plying stage carriages on Orai-Kodaura route, have challenged validity of the Notification dated 17th February, 1973 issued under Section 68-D (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939. 2. A notification under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 hereinafter referred to as the Act, was published on 28-9-1967 proposing a scheme under Chapter IV-A of the Act for exclusive plying of stage carriages of the U. P. State Transport Undertaking on Orai-Kodaura and two other allied routes. The notification invited objections from the affected persons. A number of objections were filed and the hearing authority fixed 21-1-1971 for hearing of the objections. A Gazette notification was published giving information of the date of hearing to the objectors. The hearing authority considered the objections and heard the objectors, but the petitioners did not appear, and, in their absence the hearing authority dismissed their objections and approved the scheme. Thereafter the approved scheme was notified in the gazette dated 17-2-1973. Aggrieved, the petitioners have challenged the validity of the notification. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the petitioners were not afforded any opportunity of hearing in respect of their objections as no notice was issued to them, giving information of the date of hearing and as such they could not appear before the hearing authority to lead evidence in support of their objections. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is conceded that no individual notices were sent to the petitioners although a notice was published in the gazette dated 24-12-1970 giving information to all the objectors to appear before hearing authority on January 21, 1971 for the purposes of hearing of their objections. Since the notice was published in the gazette, it is urged that a presumption would arise that the petitioners had knowledge of the date of hearing. Since they did not appear before the hearing authority, they are not entitled to raise the question of absence of opportunity of hearing. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that in the absence of individual notices to the petitioners under registered cover, no presumption could arise. The order of the hearing authority approving the scheme is null and void as the petitioners were denied opportunity of hearing. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that in the absence of individual notices to the petitioners under registered cover, no presumption could arise. The order of the hearing authority approving the scheme is null and void as the petitioners were denied opportunity of hearing. 4. Chapter IV-A of the Act contains special provisions relating to State Transport Undertaking. Under Sec. 68-C a draft notification of proposed scheme for providing transport service by the State Transport Undertaking is published in the gazette. Section 68-D lays down that any person who may be providing transport facilities in the area proposed to be covered by the scheme or any association representing interest of operators or any local authority or police authority of the area concerned, may file objections to the scheme before the State Government within 30 days from the date of the publication of the scheme. Under Section 68-D (2) the State Government is required to consider the objections and approve or modify the scheme after giving an opportunity of hearing to the objectors and the representative of the State Transport Undertaking if they so desire. The scheme as approved or modified is published in the official gazette under Section 68-D (3) of the Act and thereafter it becomes final. The State Government may appoint any officer to hear the objections and approve or modify the scheme. While considering the objections and hearing the objectors under Section 68-D (2) of the Act, the State Government acts as a quasi judicial tribunal. The purpose of the hearing is that the State Government or the authority authorised is 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 efficient, adequate, economical and properly coordinated road transport service. The objections are made to show that the scheme does not provide for efficient, adequate, economical and properly coordinated road transport service. The State Government acting as a quasi judicial authority would require material to come (to) its conclusion. In an appropriate case the State Government or the hearing authority may take evidence oral or documentary as may be desired to be produced by either party, namely, the objectors and the State Transport Undertaking. The State Government acting as a quasi judicial authority would require material to come (to) its conclusion. In an appropriate case the State Government or the hearing authority may take evidence oral or documentary as may be desired to be produced by either party, namely, the objectors and the State Transport Undertaking. Considering the nature and duties of the Slate Government or the hearing authority, it is clear that the hearing of objections does not mean, hearing arguments only, as in an appropriate case hearing may include taking of evidence both oral and documentary. (See Gullapalli Nageswara Rao v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation AIR 1959 SC 308 and Malik Ram v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1961 SC 1575 ). It is implicit in Section 68-D (2) itself that the hearing authority must give notice to the objectors and the State Transport Undertaking regarding the date, time and place of hearing. In the absence of any' notice to the objectors, it would not be possible for the objectors to appear and produce evidence before the hearing authority. 5. The question which falls for consideration is whether publication of notice in the gazette indicating the date, time and place for hearing of the objections is sufficient to meet requirement of Section 68-D (2) of the Act or whether individual notices to each of the objectors was necessary to be given. The State Government in exercise of its powers under Sections 68 and 68-1 has framed rules for carrying into effect the provisions of Chapter IV of the Act laying down the manner of filing objections under sub-section (1) of Section 68-D and also the manner in which objections may be considered and disposed of under subsection (2) of Section 68-D of the Act. These rules are known as the U. P. State Road Transport Service (Development) Rules 1958. Rule 7 relates to consideration and disposal of objections. This rule consists of nine sub-clauses but for our purposes Clauses (1), (2) and (3) are relevant which are as under : - "7. (1) The objections received shall be considered and disposed of by such officer of the State Government as is authorised in this behalf by or under rules made by the Governor in pursuance of clause (3) of Article 166 of the Constitution of India. (1) The objections received shall be considered and disposed of by such officer of the State Government as is authorised in this behalf by or under rules made by the Governor in pursuance of clause (3) of Article 166 of the Constitution of India. (2) The said officer shall fix the date, time and place for the hearing of the objections and issue notices thereof to the objector, and the representatives of the State Transport Undertaking calling upon them to appear before him in person or through a duly authorised agent or counsel and to produce their oral and documentary evidence on the date fixed for hearing. (3) The notice under sub-rule (2) shall be served by; (a) publishing a general notice in the Gazette giving the date, time and place fixed for hearing of objections; and (b) sending notice by registered post to the address of objector as noted in the memorandum of objections; and when a notice has been so published and sent service shall be deemed to have been duly effected on the objector and the State Transport Undertaking, provided the notice is despatched and published at least ten days before the date of hearing." In the instant case the State Government has authorised a member of the judicial service to consider and dispose of objections filed against draft scheme issued under Section 68-C of the Act. Under Rule 7 (2) the hearing authority is required to fix the date, time and place for hearing of the objections and issue notices individually to the objectors and the representative of the State Transport Undertaking calling upon them to appear in person or through their representatives to produce their oral and documentary evidence on the date fixed for hearing. Clause (3) of the Rule lays down that notice shall be given by two methods (1) by publication in the gazette (2) by sending notices by registered post to the addresses of the objectors. It further states that if the notice is published in the gazette and the notice is despatched to die objectors and the State Transport Undertaking by registered post at least ten days before the date of hearing, the notice shall be deemed to have been duly served upon the objectors and the (Transport Undertaking. The rule lays down a legal fiction relating to service of notice on the objectors and the State Transport Undertaking. The rule lays down a legal fiction relating to service of notice on the objectors and the State Transport Undertaking. The legal fiction as contemplated by this rule could only arise when the two requisite steps are taken at least ten days before the date of hearing. The deeming provisions of the rule relating to an objector cannot be invoked unless requisite steps as prescribed by the rule are strictly complied. If either of the two steps as contemplated by the rule are not taken within the time prescribed thereunder then the legal fiction would not arise. If the notice is not published in the gazette at least ten days before the date of hearing or if individual notice is not despatched by registered post to the address of the objector at least ten days before the date of hearing, then no presumption could arise. Clauses (2) and (3) of Rule 7 are mandatory in nature and the hearing authority must comply with both the requirements and if either of the two requirements is not fulfilled, no presumption relating to service of notice on the objector would arise and if the hearing authority approves the scheme, its decision would be illegal. Even if the presumption of service is not available, it is open to the State Transport Undertaking to show that the objector had knowledge of the date, time and place of hearing of the objection. This can be done by producing evidence aliunde. We, therefore, hold that in addition to publication of general notice in the Gazette, individual notice must be issued to the objectors in the manner laid down in Rule 7 (3). 6. In the instant case the hearing authority published the notice in the gazette ten days before the date of hearing indicating the date, time and place of hearing. But no individual notices as contemplated by Rule 7 (3) of the Rules were despatched by registered post to the petitioners Nos. 1, 2 and 3 although they had filed objections to the proposed scheme. In the absence of notice, they could not appear before the hearing authority to produce evidence in support of their objections. Since both the modes prescribed under Rule 7 (3) were not followed, no presumption of service of notice on the petitioners could arise. 1, 2 and 3 although they had filed objections to the proposed scheme. In the absence of notice, they could not appear before the hearing authority to produce evidence in support of their objections. Since both the modes prescribed under Rule 7 (3) were not followed, no presumption of service of notice on the petitioners could arise. Respondents have, failed to place any material before the court to show that the petitioners had knowledge of the date, time and place of hearing, Taj Mohammad, petitioner No. 4, had not filed any objection and as such it was not necessary for hearing authority to issue any individual notice to him. We, therefore, hold that since no notice was given to the petitioners Nos. 1 to 3, they were denied opportunity of hearing. The order of hearing authority approving the scheme for the route in question is rendered illegal in so far as the petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 are concerned. 7. In the result we allow the petition partly and quash the approved scheme as published in the Gazette under notification dated 17th February, 1973 in so far as it relates to the petitioners Nos. 1 to 3, namely, Smt. Prabha Wati Devi, Saitoo and Rajendra Pal Singh in respect of Orai-Kodaura route. We direct the hearing authority to consider and dispose of their objections after giving opportunity of hearing to them in accordance with law. The petition stands dismissed so far as the petitioner No. 4 is concerned. Parties shall bear their own costs.