Chandigarh v. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal,Punjab

Coram: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Satish Kumar Mittal Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr.Rajinder Sharma, Advocate for the Petitiioner. Mr.N.D.S. Mann,Addl.A.G.Punjab for the respondents. Rakesh Kumar Garg,J. This judgment shall dispose of two writ petitions i.e., CWP No.11691 of 2006 and CWP No.14199 of 2006 as common question of law on similar grounds and facts (except that routes in question are different) has been raised in both the writ petitions. For facility of dictating judgment, facts are being taken from CWP No.11691 of 2006. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus for a direction to modify the order dated 18.10.2005 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab (for short the “Appellate Tribunal”) to the extent as to hear the petitioner alone for the grant of Regular Stage Carriage Permit for the operation of Jalandhar-Bhogpur via Railway Station- Kishangarh Route. As per the averments made in the writ petition, Punjab Government disbanded the Nigam Transport, Jalandhar and to provide Bus service on the routes in the local area held by it for the convenience of the public deputed the District Transport Officer, Jalandhar to get survey the route, who recommended the grant of three Regular Stage Carriage Permits for plying 15 return trips on Jalandhar to Bhogpur via Railway Station-Kishangarh route. Upon the recommendation of the District Transport Officer, Jalandhar, the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab invited applications for the grant of three Regular Stage Carriage Permits and in response thereto, the petitioner submitted its application for the grant of one Regular Stage Carriage Permit to operate the three return trips. In all 109 applications were received for the grant of permits. The contents of the applications were published by the State Transport Commissioner for inviting objections but no objections were preferred by anyone within time or thereafter. The State Transport Commissioner rejected all the applications including the petitioner for the grant of permits vide order dated 23.1.1997( Annexure P-1). Feeling aggrieved against the said order of State Transport Commissioner, Punjab, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The appeal of the petitioner was allowed by the appellate Tribunal Punjab vide impugned order dated 18.10.2005 and the matter was remanded to the State Transport Commissioner with a direction to pass a fresh order qua the permits on the route in question after hearing all the applicants within 5 months. The petitioner has come up in the writ petition against the said order having grievance against the directions to State Transport Commissioner to pass a fresh order qua the permits on the route in question after hearing all the applicants. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that once the order passed by the State Transport Commissioner qua the other applicants has become final, it was not open to the appellate Tribunal to interfere and grant any relief to them. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Cumbum Roadways (P) Ltd. Vs. Somu Transport (P) Ltd. AIR 1966 SC 1366 and also a Single Bench judgment of this Court reported in M/s Mohali Bus Service Vs. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab AIR 1992 Punjab & Haryana 162. The petitioner has also relied a Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 13.7.2006 passed in CWP No.3613 of 2005 i.e., Majhi Motors Regd. Versus State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab. The prayer made by the petitioner has vehemently been opposed by Shri N.D.S. Mann, Addl. A.G. Punjab. He contends that the ratio of the judgments referred to above is not applicable to the facts of the case. It has been further stated by the counsel for the State of Punjab that in order to give effect to the transport scheme the draft notification of which was published in the Government Gazette dated 1.2.95 and finally approved by the Punjab Government on 21.10.97, the applications invited earlier in the year 1994 were rejected, under Section 103(2)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Keeping in view the interest of traveling public, this route was identified and applications for the grant of four regular stage carriage permits for plying 16 return trips daily for operation of local bus service were invited through notice dated 21.11.97 which was got published in different newspapers. Thereafter, following the required procedure, stage carriage permits on the said route were granted to the deserving candidates on merits by respondent No. 2, in the meeting held on 26.3.1998. However, the petitioner did not apply for the grant of route permit(s) on the route in question, due to the reasons best known to him. Learned Addl. A.G. Punjab has further argued that as per the law laid down in Lok Sewak Bus Service Private Ltd. Versus State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab and others 2002(2) RCR (Civil) 689 that no application for permit can be rejected under Section 103(2)(a) of the Act without providing an opportunity of hearing to the applicant concerned. Since all the applications were rejected without hearing by the State Transport Commissioner, the appellate Tribunal rightly remanded the matter to the Regional Transport Authority, Jalandhar with the direction to pass a fresh speaking order qua permits on the route in question after hearing all the applicants. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this court is of the view that the writ petitions deserves to be dismissed. The reliance of the petitioner on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Cumbum Roadway’s case (supra) is misconceived. In that case against the grant of one permit, as many as 7 appeals were filed before the appellate Tribunal and the appeal of the appellant alone was allowed while the other appeals were dismissed. The appellant alone challenged the said order in the High Court and the appellants in the other six appeals were content with the order passed by the appellate Tribunal and in those circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:- “Therefore, there seems to be no reason why when only one party brought the matter before the High Court by way of writ proceedings against another party, and the appellants in the other six appeals were content with the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal, the High Court should interfere in favour of those persons also who had not thought fit to challenge the order of the Appellate Tribunal.” However, in the present case, the facts of the case are different and none has been granted permit by the appellate Tribunal and all the applications were rejected. Reliance of the petitioner on a judgment of this Court dated 24.5.2003 in CWP No.1402 of 2003 titled as Amloh Bus Service (Regd.) Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab and others and CWP No. 3613 of 2005(Majhi Motors Versus State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab decided on 13.7.2006 is also misconceived as in these two cases also, the facts were different. In the case of Amloh Bus Service (supra), several persons were granted permits including various Depots of the Punjab Roadways and the claim of the petitioner was rejected. In the appeal filed by the petitioner before the appellate Tribunal, Punjab, one of the grounds in the appeal was that the Punjab Roadways could not be selected since they were unable to perform any operation on the route and the 2 permits surrendered by the Punjab Roadways which had earlier been granted to them be granted to the petitioner and in those circumstances, this Court observed that inviting application denovo for all surrendered permits is contrary to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Cumbum Roadway's case. In the case of Majhi Motors (Supra), the learned Division Bench relied upon a Single Bench judgment of this Court in M/s Mohali Bus Service Versus State of Punjab where again many of the applicants had not filed appeal against the grant of permits and in those circumstances, the court had rejected the fresh consideration only in favour of the appellants who had challenged the grant of such permit. In view of the above, we find no force in the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner. In our view no prejudice is going to be caused to the petitioner in case the route in question is granted after considering the claim of all the applicants, who have applied in response to the notice inviting applications. No merit. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE March 25,2008 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE