JAGJIT BUS. SERVICE (REGD.) AMRITSAR v. STATE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB & Anr.

Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 3464 of 1986. Mohan Pandey and Baldev Kapoor for the Appellant. H N.K. Sodhi, Mrs. lndu Goswarny for the Respondent. JAGJIT BUS SERVICE v. S.T. COMMR. 663 The following Order of the Court was delivered: ORDER Special leave granted. The appeal is heard. This appeal by special leave is filed against the Order dated 29.7.1986 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana rejecting the writ petition filed by the appellant inter alia for the issue of the writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the State Transport Commis sioner, Punjab, who is exercising the powers of the Regional Trans port authorities in the State of Punjab to grant permits to ply stage carriages on the route Taran Taran -Muktsar via Ferozepur and Sadiq under Chapter IV of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and to dispose of the applications for renewal of stage carriage permits which are pending before the Regional Transport authorities.

A B c -'(" The appellant was a transferee of a bus along with two permits to D operate one return trip on the route Taran Taran-Muktsar via Ferozepur and Sadiq. Those permits could not be renewed owing to the default on the part of the transferor to make within time an appli· cation for the renewal of the said permits before the permits were actually transferred. Therefore, the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab, who was exercising the powers of the Regional Transport E authorities instead of granting regular permits on applications made under section 46 of the Act granted temporary permits in favour of the appellant on the route in question. Thereafter despite the request of the appellant to issue regular permits the State Transport Commis- sioner proceeded to invite applications for the grant of temporary stage carriage permits. Pursuant to the said notification the appellant F and some others made applications.

For some reasons which need not be set out here the application of"the appellant was rejected and the temporary permits were granted in favour of the 2nd respondent. The appeals filed against the order granting temporary permits in favour of the 2nd respondent became infructuous as the period for which they ' -( had been granted expired before the appeals could be disposed of. G Be that as it may, the main grievance of the appellant has been that the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab, who is exercising the powers of the Regional Transport authorities has failed to discharge his duty under the Act, which requires him to consider and grant stage carriage permits on applications made under section 46 read with sec- H --..- .... tion 57(2) of the Act where there is need to do so to applicants who A are eligible to be granted such permits and to grant renew~! of such permits on applications for renewal made under section 58 of the Act.

The appellant, therefore, filed the writ petition, out of which this appeal arises, before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana for ap propriate relief. The said writ petition was dismissed at the stage of B admission. Aggrieved by the order of the High Court the appellant has filed this appeal by special leave. When the Special Leave Petition came up for hearing on September 16, 1986 notice was issued to the State Transport Commis sioner requiring him to show cause as to why he should not be directed to take action on applications made under section 46 of the Act for C granting permits to ply stage carriages instead of issuing temporary permits under section 62 of the Act periodically, even though there was permanent need to grant regular stage carriage permits. In reply to the said notice the 1st Respondent has filed a counter-affidavit, the relevant portion of which is as follows: D , " In the State of Punjab two separate schemes with regard to the grant of stage carriage permits in favour of the State Transport Undertakings and the Private Opera- tors were approved by the Government of Punjab under sub-section (2) of section 68(0) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.

Out of the two schemes one is called 'Punjab Road- ways Scheme' operative in the erstwhile Punjab areas and 1· -..,. the other is called 'Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Scheme' operative in the erstwhile Pepsu areas. The schemes for Punjab Roadways and Pepsu Road Transport Corporation were published on 19.11.1969 and 18.2.1972 respectively. A copy of both the schemes are exhibited as Annexure R 1 and R2. ~· According to the above notifications the Punjab Government had announced that: (i) 60% operation will be undertaken by the Punjab Roadways and the remaining 40% by the existing pri- vate operators and new entrants in the ratio of 30: 10, respectively in the areas of erstwhile Punjab State. ).... (ii) 60% operation will be undertaken by the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and 40% by the private operators in Pepsu territory. -1r 111 JAGJIT BUS SERVICE v. S.T. COMMR. 665 (iii) Notifications further provided that the schemes A will have the effect for a period of 7 years (upto 18.11.1976) in Punjab State and will last till 30th June 1977 in the Pepsu territory.

(iv) After the expiry of 7 years (upto 18.11.1976) in the case of Pun jab Scheme and from Ist July, 1977 in B the Pepsu territory, 1/3rd operations of the private operators will be taken over by the Punjab Road ways/Pepsu Road Transport Corporation every year to complete the take over in three years. Neither the Punjab Roadways nor the Pepsu Trans- C port Corporation have taken over the operations from the private operators in the terms of above mentioned notifica tions nor new schemes have been announced by the Government. The transport operations have, however, to be continued as at present to save the public from incon venience. At the same time it will not be advisable to grant D regular permits on long terms basis in the absence of any transport policy announced by the Punjab Government. Under these circumstances I am granting/issuing permits on temporary basis after following the prescribed proce dure laid down under section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and after giving due hearings to all the applicants at E the time of initial grant.

As soon as the new transport policy is finalised by the Government all the stage carriage permits granted on temporary basis due to non-finalisation of transport policy will be granted on regular basis after following the procedure as laid down under sections 57(2) and 57(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. It may, how- F ever, be added here that the State Government is in the process of finalising a new Transport policy. " A reading of the counter-affidavit filed by the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab practically does not set-up any.defence at all to the prayer made by the appellant. The counter-affidavit refers to two G schemes, namely, the Punjab Roadways Scheme and the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Scheme approved under section 68-0 of the Act, which were published on 19 .11.1969 and 18.2.1972 respectively. It is, however, admitted that neither the Punjab Roadways nor the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation have taken over the operations from the private operators in terms of the above-mentioned notifica- H . .. T C A b tions nor a11y new scheme has been announced by the Punjab Govern· ment.

The 1st Respondent further states that since there was general inconvenience, the temporary permits were being issued after follow ing the prescribed procedure laid down under the Act. The affidavit further says that due to the non· finalisation of the transport policy by the State Government it was not possible to issue regular permits to run stage carriages by following the procedure prescribed under sec· tions 57(2) and 57(3) of the Act. We are of the view that the entire policy followed by the State Government and the 1st Respondent is contrary to the general scheme of the Act. The schemes said to have been published under section 68· D of the Act do not specify any notified routes or any notified areas. It is not possible also to find out from the said scheme whether private operators have been excluded from any particular area of route. The schemes appear to be incomp· lete and, therefore, are ineffective.

In the above situation the Regional Transport authorities whose functions have been delegated under the Act to the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab, cannot decline to grant stage carriage permits on applications properly made to them by D intending operators only because the State Government has not announced its transport policy. The State Government cannot have any policy different from or independent of the provisions contained in Chapter IV and Chapter IV-A of the Act. The Transport Authorities which are statutory authorities have to discharge the duties imposed on them by the Act without waiting for any policy to be announced by the State Government. In doing so primary consideration should be given to the public interest and also to the fundamental right of the citizens to carry on motor transport business in accordance with law. It is not denied that there is a permanent need to grant permits to ply stage carriages on the several routes in the State of Punjab.

In the circumstances, the policy adopted by the 1st Respondent, namely, issuing of temporary permits from time to time, appears to be a high· ly irregular one. It is against the language and spirit of section 62 of the Act, wh.ich provides for the grant of temporary permits. This Court has observed in several decisions that a Regional Transport Authority would be failing in its duty if it grants repeatedly temporary permits to ply stage carriages on routes even though it is aware of the fact that there is a permanent need for granting regular permits in respect of the said routes. The fact that the State of Punjab is thinking of finalising a new transport policy can have no bearing on the question in issue. E F G We are, therefore, of the view that the 1st Respondent cannot successfully resist the writ petition out of which this appeal arises. In the circumstances we feel that it is appropriate to issue a writ in the H ' JAGJIT BUS SERVICE v.

S.T. COMMR. 667 1 nature of mandamus to the Regional Transport authorities in Punjab, A whose duties are being discharged by the State Transport Commis sioner, Punjab, to take immediate steps to invite applications suo motu under section 57(2) of the Act for issuing regular stage carriage permits to deserving applicants, to grant stage carriage permits to deserving applications who make applications for the stage carriage B permits in accordance with law and to dispose of the applications for renewal, if any, made under section 58 of the Act by the holders of stage carriage permits. We accordingly direct the Regional Transport authorities in the State of Punjab to take immediate steps to invite applications suo motu under section 57(2) of the Act for issuing regular permits to deserving applicants to ply stage carriages in respect of the routes where there is a permanent need, to dispose of the applica- C tions made by persons who wish to ply stage carriages on the said routes in accordance with law and to dispose of the applications that may be pending before the Regional Transport authorities for renewal of stage carriage permits under section 58 of the Act.