IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.14314 of 2006 DATE OF DECISION: MARCH 28, 2008 M/s Hind Bus Service Regd., Jalandhar City .....PETITIONER Versus State of Punjab and others ....RESPONDENTS C.W.P. No.14366 of 2006 Ex-servicemen Motor Transport Company, Jalandhar .....PETITIONER Versus State of Punjab and others ....RESPONDENTS C.W.P. No.4708 of 2007 Sukhdeep Singh .....PETITIONER Versus State Transport Commissioner, Punjab and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG --- Present: Mr.H.S.Sawhney, Sr.Advocate with Mr.B.S.Giri, Advocate, for the petitioner in CWP No.4708 of 2007. None for the petitioners in CWP Nos.14314 and 14366 of 2006. Mr.Gurminder Singh, Addl.A.G.,Punjab, for respondents. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. This order shall dispose of three writ petitions bearing CWP C.W.P. No.14314 of 2006 etc. -2- Nos.14314 of 2006 (titled as M/s Hind Bus Service Regd., Jalandhar City Versus State of Punjab and others), 14366 of 2006 (titled as Ex- servicemen Motor Transport Company, Jalandhar Versus State of Punjab and others) and 4708 of 2007 (titled as Sukhdeep Singh Versus State Transport Commissioner, Punjab and others), which are arising from a common order dated 10.8.2006 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as `the Appellate Tribunal'). CWP Nos.14314 and 14366 of 2006 have been filed against the aforesaid order whereby grant of one stage carriage permit with one return trip daily on Barnala-Jalandhar via Raikot, Jagraon, Sidhwan Bet, Nakodar route (hereinafter referred to as `the route in question') in favour of each of the petitioner has been set aside by the Appellate Tribunal and CWP No.4708 of 2007 has been filed against the aforesaid order whereby the application of the petitioner for grant of one stage carriage permit with one return trip daily has been dismissed by the State Transport Commissioner as well as by the Appellate Tribunal by finding him not suitable. The brief facts of the case are that the applications for the grant of four stage carriage permits for plying four return trips daily on the route in question were invited by the State Transport Commissioner by a notice published in the Motor Vehicles Gazette Weekly, Chandigarh dated 1.12.2003. In response to the said notice, 120 applications were received. Out of these applicants, 17 applicants did not come present to put forward their claim and out of the remaining applicants, 74 applicants were the new entrants and 27 applicants were existing operators. Since the major portion of the aforesaid route falls on the District Road/State Highway, C.W.P. No.14314 of 2006 etc. -3- therefore, as per the approved Transport Scheme dated 9.8.1990 as modified vide notification dated 21.10.1997, the permits were required to be granted in favour of the State Transport Undertakings and the private operators in the ration of 40:60. Accordingly, the State Transport Commissioner decided to grant two permits out of four permits for plying two return trips on the route in question in favour of the State Transport Undertakings and the remaining two permits with two return trips in favour of the private operators. The State Transport Commissioner while taking into consideration the factor that since the existing operators are always in a position to provide an efficient bus service to the travelling public because of their past experience, decided to grant two stage carriage permits to the existing operators. Thus, after considering the merits of all the eligible applicants, the State Transport Commissioner ultimately granted two permits with two return trips daily to the Punjab Roadways, Jagraon Depot and the remaining two permits with two return trips daily on the route in question were granted in favour of M/s Hind Bus Service Regd., Jalandhar City (petitioner in CWP No.14314 of 2006) and Ex-servicemen Motor Transport Company, Jalandhar (petitioner in CWP No.14366 of 2006) by finding them most suitable and deserving applicants for the grant of stage carriage permits on the route in question. The application of Sukhdeep Singh (petitioner in CWP No.4708 of 2007), who was a new entrant, was rejected by the State Transport Commissioner vide order dated 30.12.2004 being not found suitable. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the State Transport Commissioner, the unsuccessful applicants including the C.W.P. No.14314 of 2006 etc. -4- petitioner in CWP No.4708 of 2007 filed ten different appeals before the Appellate Tribunal. It is pertinent to mention that except one of the appellants, namely, Libra Bus Service Private Limited, Malerkotla, all other appellants were new entrants. The Appellate Tribunal after hearing the counsel for all the parties, set aside the grant of two permits in favour of the petitioners in CWP Nos.14314 and 14366 of 2006. Regarding Ex-servicemen Motor Transport Company, Jalandhar (petitioner in CWP No.14366 of 2006), it was held that the grant of one permit with one return trip daily in its favour was illegal because the application filed by the said applicant was neither signed by anybody nor the affidavit filed in support of the application was an affidavit in the eyes of law as all the columns of the said affidavit were lying blank, though the same was attested by the Executive Magistrate, Jalandhar. By taking into consideration those facts, the Appellate Tribunal came to the conclusion that when there was no proper application, one permit should not have been granted to the said applicant and consequently set aside the grant of permit made in its favour. Regarding M/s Hind Bus Service Regd., Jalandhar City (petitioner in CWP No.14314 of 2006), it was held that in the affidavit filed by the said applicant in support of its application, deliberately misstatement of fact was made to the effect that the said applicant was not holding any stage carriage permit, though it was holding permits. In spite of the said facts, the permit was wrongly granted in favour of the said applicant on the ground that it was an existing operator, and consequently set aside the grant of permit made in its favour. After setting aside the grant of the aforesaid two permits, the C.W.P. No.14314 of 2006 etc. -5- Appellate Tribunal has further taken into consideration the fact that the State Transport Commissioner had not devised a rational formula in the matter of allotting the permits. Out of total applicants, 74 applicants were the new entrants and only 27 applicants were the existing operators. In those circumstances, it was found that the permit should also have been granted to the new entrants. After coming to the said conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal considered the merits of all the appellants who filed appeals against the aforesaid order. After considering the comparative merits of all the appellants, including the petitioner in CWP No.4708 of 2007, the Appellate Tribunal came to the conclusion that none of the appellants were suitable for grant of the aforesaid permits. The claim of the petitioner in CWP No.4708 of 2007 was considered on merits and it was found that he was not a suitable candidate for the grant of permit. In his application, the said petitioner claimed himself to be matriculate and unemployed. However, in his affidavit filed along with the application, he has not mentioned these facts. Therefore, he was not found suitable for grant of a permit and consequently the appeal filed by him was dismissed for want of merit qua his entitlement to the grant of permit. Consequently, the Appellate Tribunal remanded the matter with the direction that two permits granted to the petitioners in CWP Nos.14314 and 14366 of 2006, which have been set aside, are to be granted by the State Transport Commissioner to suitable applicants in accordance with law, at the earliest preferably within three months to avoid inconvenience to the travelling public on the route in question. It has been alleged by the petitioners in CWP Nos.14314 and 14366 of 2007 that the learned Appellate Tribunal has wrongly and C.W.P. No.14314 of 2006 etc. -6- illegally set aside the permits granted to them without properly appreciating the facts and material available on the record. It has been submitted that as far as M/s Hind Bus Service Regd., Jalandhar City (petitioner in CWP No.14314 of 2006) is concerned, the said petitioner was having one permit and one bus with a daily mileage of 340 kms. and if the said permit is to be taken into consideration, it was an existing operator at the relevant time, therefore, the Appellate Tribunal has wrongly set aside the grant of one permit in its favour by the State Transport Commissioner. However, in the affidavit filed in support of its application, in column No.2, the word “N.A.” has been written which goes to show that the applicant was not holding any permit. Regarding setting aside of the permit of Ex-servicemen Motor Transport Company, Jalandhar (petitioner in CWP No.14366 of 2006), it has not been disputed that the application for grant of permit was not signed by the petitioner and the affidavit attached thereto was left blank, meaning thereby that there was no application before the State Transport Commissioner. By taking into consideration the said misstatement of facts, the Appellate Tribunal has set aside the permits granted to the petitioners in CWP Nos.14314 and 14366 of 2006. Mr.Sawhney, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in CWP No.4708 of 2007 submitted that while setting aside the grant of permits in favour of the petitioners in CWP Nos.14314 and 14366 of 2006, an observation has been made by the Appellate Tribunal to the effect that two permits, which have been set aside, are to be granted by the State Transport Commissioner in accordance with law/Scheme, at the earliest preferably within three months to avoid inconvenience to the C.W.P. No.14314 of 2006 etc. -7- travelling public on the route in question. Learned counsel submitted that these observations indicate that with regard to two permits, the State Transport Commissioner has to invite fresh applications, which, according to him, is not permissible. Learned counsel further submitted that in case the Appellate Tribunal set aside the grant of permits in favour of an applicant, then the Appellate Tribunal can remand the matter for re- consideration of the matter on merits only amongst the applicants who filed the appeals. According to the learned counsel, no direction can be issued to the State Transport Commissioner to invite fresh applications for grant of those permits. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in The Hanuman Transport Co. Private Ltd. v. Meenakshi alias Rama Bai and others, (Civil Appeal No.794 of 1963 (reported in 1963 SC (Notes) 375; Cumbum Roadways (P) Ltd., Madurai and others v. Somu Transport (P) Ltd. and others, AIR 1966 SC 1366 and a decision of this Court in Majhi Motors (Regd.), Patiala v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh and others, CWP No.3613 of 2005, decided on July 13, 2006. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the aforesaid three judgments. In our opinion, those judgments are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. In the present case, a categorical finding has been recorded by the Appellate Tribunal that out of 10 appellants whose appeals were found to be maintainable, none of the appellants were suitable for grant of two permits which were set aside by the Appellate Tribunal. In that situation, when none of the appellants were found suitable, the Appellate Tribunal was fully justified in directing the State C.W.P. No.14314 of 2006 etc. -8- Transport Commissioner to grant those permits in accordance with law/Scheme, at the earliest preferably within three months to avoid inconvenience to the travelling public on the route in question. As far as the petitioner in CWP No.4708 of 2007 is concerned, he was neither found suitable by the State Transport Commissioner nor by the Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, he cannot be permitted to say that no de novo application should be invited and the permit should be granted to him. In Cumbum Roadways (P) Ltd., Madurai's case (supra), the facts were entirely different. In that case, after setting aside the permit in favour of the applicant, the matter was remanded and after the remand the Regional Transport Authority granted the permit to an applicant who even did not file an appeal. In that situation, it was held that after the remand, the Appellate Tribunal should have confined the consideration of those parties who came to the High Court and the consideration was not to be extended to others who even did not challenge the order of the Appellate Tribunal. Similarly in The Hanuman Transport Co.Private Ltd.'s case (supra), the matter was remanded by the Appellate Tribunal for fresh consideration of all the applicants. The Supreme Court came to the conclusion that after re-consideration the permit was granted to an applicant, who even did not file an appeal against the rejection of his claim by the Regional Transport Authority. The Appellate Tribunal on appeal by another applicant, set aside that order. In that situation, it was observed that while remanding the matter, the Appellate Tribunal should have to direct that the consideration will be confined among those applicants who came before the Appellate Tribunal and not the applicants who did not file an appeal against the rejection of their claim. Similarly, C.W.P. No.14314 of 2006 etc. -9- the judgment of this Court in Majhi Motors (Regd.) Patiala's case (supra) is also not applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, we do not find any merit in all the three petitions and the same are hereby dismissed. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE March 28, 2008 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) vkg JUDGE