JUDGMENT K.S. Verma, J. - The above mentioned writ petitions relate to grant of permits, renewal of permits and the grant of temporary permits on notified routes. The petitioners applications for the grant of permits have been refused on the ground that by notification No. 4170-T,'XXX-4-45- K. M.-79 D/- 31-8-1981 the operation of certain specified vehicles was stopped on the ground that the operation of such vehicles was not in public interest. The vehicles in respect of which permits were sought to be obtained are indicated below : 1. Standard-20 Diesel 260-D 2. Matador 3. Hindustan Trekker 4. Mahendra FC-360-D 5. Mahendra Jeep (Operated by diesel) 2. When arguments in the above mentioned writ petitions started, Mr. P. C. Saxena who appears in most of the cases submitted that Writ Petition No. 3173 of 1982 be treated as the leading case. The learned counsel in other writ petitions did not object to this suggestion. We now propose to deal with the petitions relating to grant of permits and renewal of permits. 3. The main prayer in all the writ petitions is that this Court may quash the impugned notification D/- 31-8-1981 whereby the State Government has directed that it was not in public interest to permit the operation of the vehicles referred to above on notified routes. It may be noted that the notification D/- 31-8-1981 under challenge was issued separately in respect of each vehicle. At this stage, it is also appropriate to mention that simultaneously with the said notification D/- 31-8-1981 prohibiting the operation of the vehicles mentioned above, the State Government issued another notification D/- 31-8-1981 in respect of the above vehicles whereby the State Government directed that the State Transport Authority and the Regional Transport Authorities may not renew contract carriage (motor cab) permits for the types of vehicles mentioned above and further provided that the State Transport Authority and the Regional Transport Authorities may grant contract carriage permits or stage carriage permits in respect of the aforesaid vehicles for which fresh permits were being sought on particular routes out of the routes, other than the routes notified under S. 68-D(3), Motor Vehicles Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) subject to the condition that the permits so granted shall provide for seating capacity of the vehicles in accordance with the specification of the manufacturers. 4. 4. The following Chart will indicate the Notifications which prohibit the operation of the above mentioned vehicles and the Notifications which permit their operation on non-notified routes : Notification No. 4170-T/XXX-4 45-K. M.-79 dated Lucknow August 31, 1981. Whereas the State Government is of the opinion that the operation of Mahindra FC- 360-D type of vehicles as motor cabs is not in public interest. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers under sub-s. (2) of 43-A Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Act No. IV of 1939) as amended in its application to Uttar Pradesh read with S. 21, General Clauses Act, 1897 (Act No. X of 1897), the Governor is pleased to rescind with immediate effect the Government notification No. 5355-T/XXX-4-21-K. M.-79, dated November 2, 1979 directing the State Transport Authority and the Regional Transport Authorities to grant contract carriage (motor cab) permits to Standard-20 Diesel 260-D Station Wagon type of vehicles. Notification No. 4171-T/XXX-4-45-K. M.-79 Dated Lucknow, August, 31, 1981. Whereas, the State Government has by notification No. 4170-T/XXX-4-45 K.M.-79 dated August 31, 1981, rescinded Government notification No. 7456-T/XXX-4-45-K.M.-79, dated January 21, 1980 regarding grant of contract carriage (motor cab) permits to Mahindra FC-360-D type of vehicles: And, Whereas, the State Government is of the opinion that it is necessary and expedient in public interest so to do: Now, Therefore, in exercise of the powers under sub-ss. (1) and (3) of S. 43-A, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, (Act No. IV of 1939), as amended in its application to Uttar Pradesh, hereinafter referred to as the Act, the Governor is pleased to direct that- (i) the State Transport Authority and the Regional Transport Authorities may not renew contract carriage (motor cab) permits granted to these types of vehicles in accordance with the directions contained in the said notification of Jan. 21, 1980 on the expiry of the existing permit; and (ii) The State Transport Authority and the Regional Transport Authorities may grant contract carriage permits or stage carriage permits to the aforesaid vehicles or to any similar vehicle for which fresh permit is being sought on particular routes out of the routes, other than the routes notified under S. 68- 1)(3) of the Act subject to the condition that the permits so granted shall provide for seating capacity of the vehicles in accordance with the specification of the manufacturers. Notification No. 4173-T/XXX-4-6-K. M.-79 dated Lucknow, August 31, 1981. Notification No. 4173-T/XXX-4-6-K. M.-79 dated Lucknow, August 31, 1981. Whereas the State Government is of the opinion that the operation of Hindustan Trekker and Diesel Jeep vehicles as motor cabs is not in public interest. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers under sub-s. (2) of S. 43-A, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Act No. IV of 1939), as amended in its application to Uttar Pradesh, read with S. 21, General Clauses Act, 1897 (Act No. X of 1897) the Governor is pleased to rescind with immediate effect, the Government notification No. 6788-T/XXX-4-6-K. M.-79, dated December 12, 1979, directing the State Transport Authority and the Regional Transport Authorities to grant contract carriage (motor cab) permits to Hindustan Trekker and Diesel Jeep vehicles. Notification No. 4174-T/XXX-4-6-K. M.-79 Dated Lucknow, August 31, 1981. Whereas the State Government has by notification No. 4173-T/XXX-4-6 K. M.-79, dated 31-8-1981 rescinded Government notification No. 6788-T/XXX-4-6-K. M.-79, dated 12-12-1979. regarding grant of contract carriage (motor cab) permits to Hindustan Trekker and Diesel Jeep vehicles : And Whereas the State Government is of the opinion that it is necessary and expedient in public interest so to do : Now, Therefore, in exercise of the powers under sub-ss. (I) and (3) of S. 43-A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Act No. IV of 1939), as amended in its application to Uttar Pradesh hereinafter referred to as the Act the Governor is pleased to direct that- (i) the State Transport Authority and the Regional Transport Authorities may not renew contract carriage (motor cab) permits granted to these types of vehicles in accordance with the direction contained in the said notification of December 12. 1979 on the expiry of the existing period of the permits; and (ii) the State Transport Authority and the Regional Transport Authorities may grant contract carriage permits or stage carriage permits to the aforesaid vehicles or to any similar vehicles for which fresh permit is being sought on particular routes out of the routes, other than the routes notified under S. 68- D(3) of the Act subject to the condition that the permits so granted shall provide for seating capacity of the vehicles in accordance with the specification of the manufacturers. Notification No. 4176-T/XXX-4-21- K. M.-79, dated Lucknow, August 31, 1981. Notification No. 4176-T/XXX-4-21- K. M.-79, dated Lucknow, August 31, 1981. Whereas the State Government is of the opinion that the operation of Standard-20 Diesel 260-D Station Wagon type of vehicles as motor cabs is not in public interest : Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers under sub-s. (2) of S. 43-A, of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Act No. IV of 1939), as amended in its application to Uttar Pradesh, read with S. 21, General Clauses Act, 1897 (Act No. X-of 1897), the Governor is pleased to rescind with immediate effect, the Government notification No.7456- T/XXX-4-45-K. M.-79, dated January 21, 1980 directing the State Transport Authority and the Regional Transport Authorities to grant contract carriage (motor-cab) permits to Mahindra FC-360-1) type of vehicles............ Notification No. 4177-T/XXX-4-21-K. M.- 79, dated Lucknow, August 31, 1981. Whereas the State Government has by notification No. 4176-T/XXX-4-21-K. M.-79, dated August 31, 1981 rescinded Government notification No. 5355-T/XXX-4-21 K. M.-79, dated November 21, 1979 regarding grant of contract carriage (motor cab) permits to Standard-20-Diesel 264-D Station Wagon type of vehicles: And Whereas the State Government is of the opinion that it is necessary and expedient in public interest so to do; Now, Therefore, in exercise of the powers under sub-ss. (1) and (3) of section 43-A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Act No. IV of 1939). as amended in its application to Uttar Pradesh hereinafter referred to as the Act the Governor is pleased to direct that- (i) the State Transport Authority and the Regional Transport Authorities may not renew contract carriage (motor cab) permits granted to these types of vehicles in accordance with the directions contained in the said notification of November 2, 1979 on the expiry of the existing period of the permits; and (ii) the State Transport Authority and the Regional Transport Authorities may grant contract carriage permits or stage carriage permits to the aforesaid vehicles or to any similar vehicle for which fresh permit is being sought on particular routes out of the routes other than the routes notified under S. 68-D (3) of the Act subject to the condition that the permits so granted shall provide for seating capacity of the vehicles in accordance with the specification of the manufacturers. Notification No. 4082-T/XXX-4-9-P- 72. dated Lucknow. August 3l, 1981. Notification No. 4082-T/XXX-4-9-P- 72. dated Lucknow. August 3l, 1981. Whereas the State Government is of the opinion that the operation of station wagons or utility cars of Matador or similar other types of vehicles as motor cabs is not in public interest : Now, Therefore. in exercise of the powers under subs. (2) of S. 43-A, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Act No. IV of 1939), as amended in its application to Uttar Pradesh, read with S. 21. General Clauses Act, 1897 (Act No. X of 18971, the Governor is pleased to rescind with immediate effect, the Government notification No. 2988-T/XXX- 4-9-P-72, dated July 5, 1979 directing the State Transport Authority and the Regional Transport Authorities to grant contract carriage (motor cab) permits to station wagons or utility cars of Matador or similar other types of vehicles (Emphasis supplied) Notification No. 4083-T/XXX-4-9-p-72 dated Lucknow, August 31, 1981. Whereas the State Government has by notification No. 4082-T-XXX-4-8-72, dated Aug, 31, 1981, rescinded Government notification No. 2988-T/XXX-4-9-p-72, dated July 5, 1979 regarding grant of contract carriage (motor cab), permits to station wagons or utility cars of Motor or similar other types of vehicles; And Whereas the State Government is of the opinion that it is of the opinion that it is necessary and expedient in public interest so to do: Now, Therefore, in exercise of the powers under sub-sections (1) and (3) of section 43A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Act No. IV of 1939), as amened in its application to Uttar Pradesh., herinafter referred to as the Act the Government is pleased to direct that - (i) The State Transport Authority and the Regional Transport Authorities may not renew contract carriage (motor cab) permits granted to these types of vehicles in accordance with the directions contained in the said notification of July 5, 1979 on the expiry of the existing period of the permits; and (ii) the State Transport Authority and the Regional Transport Authorities may grant contract carriage permits or stage carriage permits to the aforesaid vehicles or to any Similar vehicle for which fresh permit is being sought on particular routes out of the routes other than the routes notified under section 68-D(3) of the Act subject to the condition that the permits so granted shall provide for seating capacity of the vehicles in accordance with the specification of the manufacturers. (Emphasis supplied) 5. (Emphasis supplied) 5. It is stated in the petition that after the construction of the above vehicles, the manufacturers applied for the grant of Industrial Licence under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 for the manufacture of the vehicles and the Ministry of Civil Supplies was pleased to grant the licence to manufacture the vehicles of light commercial nature including three wheelers and four wheelers. It is also maintained by the petitioner in the petition that the Government of India before permitting the vehicle to be used tested the road-worthiness and-safety-of the vehicles and over a lakh of said vehicles are successfully plying on various roads in the country. On 11-3-1976 in exercise of powers under S. 43-A, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. the State Government issued a notification directing the State Transport Authority and Regional Transport Authorities not to grant contract carriage taxi cab permits to the vehicles mentioned in the notification. The said notification was challenged in this Court in Writ Petition No. 1761 of 1976 and on 9-11-1976 a Division Bench of this Court directed that till further orders of the Court, effect shall not be given to the impugned notification D/- 11-3-1976. On 4-5-1977 the State Government issued another notification directing the State Transport Authority and the Regional Transport Authorities to grant contract carriage permits (motor carriage permits) in respect of the vehicles mentioned in the notification D/'- 11-3-1976. It may be noted that again on 5-3 1979 the State of U. P. issued another notification rescinding the earlier notification D/- 4-5-1977. The notification D/- 5-3-1979 was challenged in this Court in Writ Petition No. 2116 of 1979 and a portion of the said notification was stayed by this Court on 9-5-1979. On 24-7- 1979, Writ Petition No. 2116 of 1979 was dismissed as having become infructuous by a Division Bench of this Court on account of the notification D/- 5-3-1979 having been withdrawn by notification D/- 5-7-1979. Subsequently, by a separate notification permits were allowed to be granted for Hindustan Trekker and Diesel Jeep, Standard 20 Diesel and Mahindra FC 360 D. In the petition it has also been averred that the State Government with the increase of population and growing needs of the people, wanted faster means of conveyance. Subsequently, by a separate notification permits were allowed to be granted for Hindustan Trekker and Diesel Jeep, Standard 20 Diesel and Mahindra FC 360 D. In the petition it has also been averred that the State Government with the increase of population and growing needs of the people, wanted faster means of conveyance. The Transport authorities also noticed that the plying of bigger buses on smaller distances was not feasible and for this reason the State Government adopted the policy that it was necessary to provide cheaper and quicker transport by way of grant of permits for smaller vehicles. It has also been stated in the petition that on nationalised routes, the U. P. State Road Transport Corporation was not able to meet the growing and expanding need of public because of shortage of buses. The Corporation is entitled to operate on 2,43,00,000 Km. of distance but because of shortage of vehicles decided to permit private operators to ply on nationalised routes by hiring their vehicles. In pursuance of this policy, about 950 buses of private operators were placed on nationalised routes and agreements were entered between private owners and the Corporation. In respect of the financial year 1980-1981 ending on 31-3-1981, the Corporation had to purchase 900 vehicles for replacements of old buses. On these facts, it is stated by the petitioner that the traffic on various routes has increased tremendously and in that situation the State Government issued notification D/- 5th July, 1979. The said notification is Annexure I to the petition. 6. In pursuance of the policy indicated in Annexure 1 to the petition, the State Government allowed grant of permits to the types of vehicles mentioned in the notification. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the cancellation of the earlier notification by notification dated 31-8-1981 on the alleged ground of public interest is arbitrary and is illegal. It is stated in the petition that no reason has been given in the notification D/- 31-8-1981 as to how and on what grounds. the State Government concluded that operation of vehicles mentioned therein was not in public interest. It is maintained that the notification D/- 31-8-1981 has been issued under S. 43-A of the Act, which has been included in the Act for the benefit of the travelling public and the notification D/- 31- 8-1981 runs counter to it. the State Government concluded that operation of vehicles mentioned therein was not in public interest. It is maintained that the notification D/- 31-8-1981 has been issued under S. 43-A of the Act, which has been included in the Act for the benefit of the travelling public and the notification D/- 31- 8-1981 runs counter to it. It is also stated that the impugned notification has been issued under sub-s. (2) of S. 43A of the Act and the same did not empower the State Government to issue the same. It is further maintained that the petitioners purchased the vehicles after raising loans for substantial amounts for the purchase of the said vehicles which they are bound to repay in monthly instalments. After they had secured vehicles, operation of the same has been banned by the notification D/- 31-8-1981. If no permit is issued in respect of such vehicles, they will not be able to ply their vehicles and earn their livelihood and will not be able to repay back the loan obtained by them from the Banks. The notification D/- 31-8-1981 is, accordingly, challenged on the ground that it is outside the scope of S. 43-A of the Act and that the said notification did not indicate as to why the operation of the aforesaid vehicles was not in public interest. On the aforesaid facts, the petitioners have prayed the quashing of the notification D/- 31-8-1981 whereby the State Transport Authority and the Regional Transport Authorities were restrained from granting permits in respect of the vehicles mentioned therein. It has also been prayed that a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus be issued commanding the respondents not to enforce the impugned notification against the petitioners. 7. It may be noted that the opposite parties did not file any counter-affidavit in most of the writ petitions. The counter affidavit which has been filed in some of the petitions is so unsatisfactory that it has been of no help to us. However, Mr. 7. It may be noted that the opposite parties did not file any counter-affidavit in most of the writ petitions. The counter affidavit which has been filed in some of the petitions is so unsatisfactory that it has been of no help to us. However, Mr. H. N. Tilhari, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the notification dated 31-8-1981 whereby State Transport Authority and the Regional Transport Authorities were forbidden to grant permits does not deserve to be quashed as by another notification of the same date, namely, 31-8-1981, the State Transport Authority and the Regional Transport Authorities were directed not to renew contract carriage (motor carriage permits) granted to those types of vehicles on the expiry of the existing period of permits but by the same notification, the State Transport Authority and the Regional Transport authorities were permitted to grant contract carriage permits or stage carriage permits in respect of the said vehicles or similar vehicles for which fresh permits were sought on non-notified routes subject to the condition that the vehicle will provide for seating capacity in accordance with the notification. It is contended that the State Government is the best judge as to what is in public interest. It is contended by Mr. Tilhari that the State Government did not restrain the use of the vehicles absolutely but directed the said authorities not to grant permits on notified routes but to grant permits on non-notified routes. It is, accordingly, submitted on behalf of the opposite parties that the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 8. In order to appreciate the points raised in this writ petition, it is necessary to refer to certain provisions of the Act. Section 2(3) of the Act defines `contract carriage' as meaning a motor vehicle which carries a passenger or passengers for hire or reward under a contract express or implied for the use of the vehicle as a whole and includes a motor cab. Section 2(15) of the Act defines `motor Cab' as meaning any motor vehicle constructed, adapted or used to carry not more than six passengers excluding the driver, for hire or reward. Section 2(15) of the Act defines `motor Cab' as meaning any motor vehicle constructed, adapted or used to carry not more than six passengers excluding the driver, for hire or reward. Section 2(29) of the Act defines `stage carriage' as meaning a motor vehicle carrying or adapted to carry more than six persons excluding the driver which carries passengers for hire or reward at separate fares paid by or for individual passengers, either for the whole journey or for stages of the journey. Section 43-A of the Act insofar as it applied to the State of Uttar Pradesh provides that the State Government may issue such directions of a general character as it may consider necessary or expedient in the public interest in respect of any matter relating to road transport to State Transport Authority or Regional Transport Authority. The said section is reproduced below, insofar as it is relevant : "43-A Powers of State Government to issue directions to Transport Authorities-(1) The State Government may issue such directions of a general character as it may consider necessary or expedient in the public interest in respect of any matter relating to road transport to the State Transport Authority or to any Regional Transport Authority, and such Regional Transport authority shall give effect to all such directions." 9. The constitutional validity of S. 43-A of the Act was challenged before the Supreme Court in the case of Hans Raj Kehar v. State of U. P. ( AIR 1975 SC 389 ). While dealing with the question, the Supreme Court observed that the object of the Legislature in inserting S. 43-A in the Motor Vehicles Act was to make it sure to secure permits in respect of non- nationalised routes. Khanna, J. at page 391 of the report observed as follows : - "Perusal of S. 43-A shows that the object of legislature in inserting it in the Motor Vehicles Act was to make it easier to secure permits in respect of non-nationalised routes. The section seeks to simplify the procedure for this purpose. It has accordingly been provided that in the case of non-nationalised routes if the State Government is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to grant permits to all eligible applicants, it may by notification in the Gazette issue a direction accordingly." 10. The section seeks to simplify the procedure for this purpose. It has accordingly been provided that in the case of non-nationalised routes if the State Government is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to grant permits to all eligible applicants, it may by notification in the Gazette issue a direction accordingly." 10. It is thus obvious that S. 43-A of the Act provided for the grant of permits on non-nationalised routes. The Supreme Court also upheld the constitutional validity of section 43-A of the Act and the notification under challenge issued under that section and observed that they were not violative of Article 19 of the Constitution of India It was also held by the Supreme Court that the provisions of S. 43-A of the Act were not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Once the constitutional validity of S. 43-A of the Act is upheld the question that arises is whether the notification D/- 31-8-1981 whereby the Transport authorities were restrained from granting permits in respect of the specified vehicles is valid and enforceable in law. 11. The contention of Mr. P. C. Saxena is that various notifications issued by the State Government under S. 43-A of the Act, which are on record in the writ petitions, make it clear that from time to time the State Government issued notifications prohibiting the grant of permits in respect of specified routes but later on when such notifications were challenged in this Court, the same were withdrawn. From the facts stated in the petitions, which are not controverted by any counter-affidavit, it is contended that although the State Government accepts that the traffic has increased on account of increase in population and more vehicles are needed for transport of passengers, the State Government has been arbitrarily issuing notifications prohibiting the operation of vehicles and then withdrawing the prohibition. Such an action, according to Mr. P. C. Saxena, is arbitrary. We are not impressed by this argument. `Public interest' is an elastic term and has different shades of meaning in different circumstances. The State Road Transport Corporation is operating vehicles on various routes and they are the best authorities to determine the strength on each route. Section 43-A of the Act deals with grant of permits on non- notified routes. We are not impressed by this argument. `Public interest' is an elastic term and has different shades of meaning in different circumstances. The State Road Transport Corporation is operating vehicles on various routes and they are the best authorities to determine the strength on each route. Section 43-A of the Act deals with grant of permits on non- notified routes. In this respect also the strength of the route can be determined by the Transport authorities regard being had to the extent of traffic on the said routes. It may be that on occasions the traffic on non- notified routes decreases and on other occasions it may increase. It depends on the local conditions of the areas connected by non-notified routes. The Transport Authorities are the best judges when they should have more vehicles on a particular route and when the strength of the route may be cut short. In this view of the matter, the action of the State Government in increasing or decreasing the grant of permits on notified routes cannot be questioned as being arbitrary. 12. It was next contended on behalf of the petitioners that the non-operation of particular types of vehicles for instance the vehicles in question, has no relevance to public interest. It was contended that the vehicles in question have been constructed by reputed firms and at the time of grant of permits their road-worthiness is tested under various provisions of the Act. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that it is not the case of the opposite parties that the vehicles in question are sub-standard or are not roadworthy. In this view of the matter, it is submitted that the prohibition in regard to operation of the vehicles in question is arbitrary. We are not impressed by this argument. It is a matter of common knowledge that on notified routes bigger vehicles operate and the traffic on the said routes is more than on non-notified routes. On non-notified routes, generally, the traffic is less and the roads are not as wide and as good as they are on notified routes. In order to cater to the needs of the travelling public on the non-notified routes, the State Government has considered it proper that lighter vehicles should operate regard being had to the nature of the roads on non-notified routes. In order to cater to the needs of the travelling public on the non-notified routes, the State Government has considered it proper that lighter vehicles should operate regard being had to the nature of the roads on non-notified routes. If in these circumstances the State Government decides that lighter vehicles should ply on non-notified routes, the notification issued for that purpose cannot he said to be not in public interest. As stated earlier, on 31-8-1981, two notifications had been issued, by one notification the Transport authorities have been restrained from issuing permits in respect of the specified vehicles and also from renewing permits which have expired, at the same time by another notification of the same date, namely, 31-8-1981 the State Government has authorised the Transport authorities to issue permits in respect of the vehicles in question on non-notified routes. We are, accordingly. of the view that the action taken by the State Government is perfectly legal. If on the notified routes bigger vehicles and smaller vehicles both are allowed to operate there might be congestion on roads resulting in accidents and in these circumstances, the action of the State Government confining the operation of certain types of vehicles only to non- notified routes cannot he said to be against public interest. As a matter of fact. by the notification in question, the public interest is better served. There will be less congestion on notified routes and by operation of lighter vehicles on non-notified routes the needs of the travelling public on the said routes would also he catered. It may be further noted that the State Government had directed the Transport authorities not to issue permits in regard to the vehicles in question as motor cabs but by the other notification of that date, the Transport authorities had been permitted to grant permits on non-notified routes. The motor cabs are smaller vehicles and if their operation is confined on non-notified routes where the traffic is less and the roads are narrower, the action of the State Government cannot be said to be an action not in public interest. As a matter of fact, this 'action will prevent incidence of congestion on notified routes. If the traffic on the notified routes is more, it is open to the State Government to ply big vehicles or still bigger vehicles. As a matter of fact, this 'action will prevent incidence of congestion on notified routes. If the traffic on the notified routes is more, it is open to the State Government to ply big vehicles or still bigger vehicles. Such vehicles may be appropriate for operation on wider and better roads but on non-notified routes where roads are inferior and less wide the operation of smaller vehicles would be proper and appropriate. In our opinion. such an action serves the public interest better. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioners referred to the cases reported in Mohd. Faruk v. State of Madhya Pradesh ( AIR 1970 SC 93 ), Raja Sukhnandan v. State of U. P. ( AIR 1972 All 498 ) : (1972 All LJ 537) and M/s. Laxmi Khandsari v. State of U. P. etc. ( AIR 1981 SC 873 ). In our opinion these decisions have no application to the facts of the instant cases as the said decisions deal with the question of reasonableness of restrictions on fundamental rights they have no bearing and do not throw any light on the question as to what is and what is not 'public interest'. 14. It has been contended by Mr. H. N. Tilhari that an action may be said to be an action in public interest if by that action people are generally benefited. He contended that the operation of motor cabs on non-notified routes would serve the interest of the travelling public on the said routes and the restriction placed on the operation of the said vehicles on notified routes would obviate congestion and incidence of accidents on the said routes. According to his submission such an action on the part of the State Government cannot but be an action in public interest. After having examined the material on record and having heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. we are inclined to agree with the contention of Mr. Tilhari and hold that the operation of the vehicles in question on notified routes is not in public interest; rather the operation of the said vehicles on non-notified routes will serve a double purpose, namely, that there will be less congestion and less accidents on the notified routes and the operation of smaller vehicles will be sufficient to serve the interest of travelling public on the non- notified routes. 15. 15. For the reasons stated above, we are of the view that the Transport authorities cannot grant permit or renew a permit on notified routes in respect of the vehicles referred to above and the impugned notifications cannot be said to be against in the public interest nor those are hit by' Articles 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution merely because of that reason. 16. Writ Petitions Nos. 258, 648, 671. 704 and 705 of 1982 relate to the grant of temporary permit on notified routes. The petitioners applications for grant of said permits were refused. We have already held that the notification dated 31-8-1981 prohibiting the operation of the vehicles in question on notified routes is valid and legal. We have also taken the view that the Transport authorities may grant permit in respect of operation of the vehicles in question on non-notified routes. As a consequence of our findings the Transport authorities are justified in refusing the grant of temporary permits to the petitioners on notified routes. 17. In para 35 of this petition it has been stated that the State Government had not issued any notification stopping the grant of contract carriage (motor cab) permits to other types of vehicles like 'Vikrani, 'Badal', 'Ambassador' and 'Fiat and thus has acted discriminately. This argument has to be repelled outright by reason of the fact that the second notification No. 4171/T/XXX-4- 45-K.M.-79. dated 31-8-1981 provides that the State Transport Authority or Regional Transport Authority may grant contract carriage permits or stage carriage permits to the aforesaid vehicles or to any similar vehicle. The language of the said notification clearly indicates that there is no discrimination in regard to any types of vehicle in respect of which permit may he granted on the non-notified route. 18. We would like to clarify that it will be open to the Transport authorities to consider the petitioners' applications for grant of permit on non-notified routes. With these observations, all these petitions deserve to be dismissed. 19. For the reasons stated above, we find no merit in all these writ petitions. The petitions are, accordingly, dismissed with costs. Stay orders are vacated.