Doaba Roadways Limited, Hoshiarpur & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, going through the legal provisions & record with his valuable assistance and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant writ petition in this respect.

5. Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that unless respondent No.2 determines the number of permits to be granted on the said route, then the proceedings of allotment of route permits, in lieu of advertisement (Annexure P5) would be illegal, is neither tenable nor the observations of Hon'ble Apex Court in cases H.C.Narayanappa and Ors. v. State of Mysore & Others AIR 1960 SC 1073 and R.Obliswami Naidu v. The Additional State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras and others 1969 (1) S.C.C. 733 are at all applicable to the facts of the present case.

6. As is clear, in H.C.Narayanappa's case (supra), the State of Mysore published a Transport Scheme under section 68-D(2) of the old Act on 23.4.1959. The applications filed by the petitioners for obtaining the permits to ply Stage carriages on certain routes covered by the scheme, were rejected by the Transport Authority and the 2nd respondent was given permanent permits for plying buses on those routes. Aggrieved by the rejection of their applications, the petitioners therein filed the writ petition quashing the indicated scheme framed by the government, mainly on the ground that they have fundamental right to carry on the business of plying Stage Carriages and the scheme framed by the State of Mysore Civil Writ Petition No.19612 of 2011 -3- was unlawful. On the peculiar facts and in the circumstances of that case, it was observed that the expression “law” as defined in Article 13(3)(a) includes any ordinance, order, bye-law, Rule, regulation, notification, custom etc. and the scheme framed under Section 68-C can be regarded as “law” within the meaning of Article 19(6) and the respective Governments have the powers to frame law/such schemes, excluding private operators from notified routes or notified areas and such schemes are immune from the attack on the ground of infringement of the fundamental rights and the authority of the Parliament to enact laws granting monopolies to the State Government to conduct the business of road transport is not open to challenge. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioners therein was dismissed.

7. Likewise, in R.Obliswami Naidu's case (supra), the appellant therein applied to the RTA, Coimbatore for a permit to ply a stage carriage on the entirely new route i.e. Bhavani to Vellithiruppur. No stage carriage was plying on that route at that time. The RTA invited the applications. Some of the persons objected to it contending that there was no need to grant a stage carriage permit for that route. The RTA overruled their objections and granted the permit asked for. On appeal, the Tribunal held that the procedure adopted by the RTA contravened section 47(3) of the Act. The appellant challenged that order and the High Court negatived his claim. In the wake of appeal, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that, before granting a stage carriage permit, two independent steps have to be taken. Firstly, there should be a determination by the RTA under section 47(3) of the number of stage carriages, for which, the stage carriage permits may be granted on that route, thereafter, the application should be entertained and the RTA is not competent to grant stage carriage permit for more carriages under section 47(3) of the Act.

8. Possibly, no one can dispute with regard to the aforesaid observations, but to me, the same would not come to the rescue of the petitioners Civil Writ Petition No.19612 of 2011 -4- in the present controversy.

9. As is evident from the record that the Government of Punjab has framed the Transport Service Scheme (Annexure P4), inter-alia containing the terms and conditions for issuance of route permits described therein, including clause (7-A), which reads as under:- “(7-A) While granting permits for operations on routes, linking one village with another village without any city or a town or municipality, in between the aforesaid two villages, or a route linking a village with the block Headquarters or a municipality or town or Mandi or City, or for service within the city, allowed on the basis of passengers road transport needs as assessed by the State Transport Commissioners, Punjab from time to time provided that :- (a) the total length of each such route does not exceed 25 kilometers and the total operation per bus, does not exceed 250 kilometer per day. (b) not more than half of the total routes length runs across a National Highways or State Highways. (c) at least one of the terminal of the route shall be a village and shall not include more than one municipality except on a local route falling within the municipal limits of a town, municipality or city whereon both the starting and the terminating points may be the same or may fall within the same town, municipality or city as the case may be; and (d) it shall be ensured that the interest of the State Transport Undertakings are not affected adversely on such routes.”

10. Sequelly, in pursuance of the Transport Service Scheme, the RTA has invited the applications for the grant of particularly specified numbers and names of the regular Stage Carriage Permits, in lieu of notice (Annexure P5), on the following routes:- Sr.No. Name of route No. of permit No. of R/Ts

1. Amritsar to Dera Baba Nanak Via Ajnala 3 6

2. Jalandhar to Pathankot Via Bhogpur, Tanda 2 2 Dasuya, Mukerian.

3. Jalandhar to Hoshiarpur Via Adampur 3 9

4. Amritsar to Talwara Via Nawanpind, Mehta 3 3 Sri Hargobind, Tanda, Dasuya, Mukerian route. Civil Writ Petition No.19612 of 2011 -5-

11. Similarly, the applications were invited for particular two regular Stage Carriage Permits to operate on the route of Bathinda to Amritsar, as mentioned in Annexure P6. Moreover, the specific (new) route and number of particular route permits are depicted in the impugned advertisements (Annexures P5 & P6).

12. Meaning thereby, the State authorities, having determined the need of the passengers and taking into consideration the other relatable factors, fixed the particular number of Stage Carriage Permits on the indicated routes and accordingly invited the applications, by virtue of notices (Annexures P5 & P6) in this relevant behalf. Every such action of the State authorities is presumed to be valid and framed in public interest, unless otherwise proved by the petitioners by producing cogent evidence/material, which is totally lacking in the present case. Their apprehension that the impugned advertisements are not passengers' need based, is merely speculative. They have miserably failed to substantiate their claim at this stage in this relevant connection.

13. The learned counsel for the petitioners did not point out any legal violation and any material, much less cogent, even to suggest remotely, as to how and in what manner, the impugned advertisements, inviting the applications for indicated route permits are not passengers/need based. It is not a matter of dispute that the petitioners are transporters and are running their buses. They appear to have filed the instant writ petition, in order to delay the grant of new route permits to other persons/applicants, with a view to earn undue profits. Thus, the contrary contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners “stricto sensu” deserve to be and are hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances. Therefore, no cogent ground to entertain the speculative prayer of the petitioners in the writ petition at this stage is made out, in exercise of limited extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, in the obtaining circumstances of the case.

14. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or Civil Writ Petition No.19612 of 2011 -6- pressed by the counsel for the petitioners.

15. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is dismissed as such. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 19.10.2011 AS Judge Whether to be referred to reporter? Yes/No