IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 18310 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION : 15.02.2008 Baba Bus Services (Regd.), Fazilka .... PETITIONER Versus The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr. Rajinder Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The petitioner has filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the order dated 10.5.2007, passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as `the STAT'), dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the order dated 27.1.2006, passed by the State Transport Commissioner, exercising the powers of the Regional Transport Authority, Ferozepur (hereinafter referred to as `the RTA'), whereby application of the petitioner for grant of one regular stage carriage permit with one return trip daily on Abohar- Amritsar via Malout, Muktsar, Kotkapura, Faridkot, Talwandi Bhai, Zira, CWP No. 18310 of 2007 -2- Hari Ke, Tarn Taran route (hereinafter referred to as `the route in question'), was dismissed. In this case, vide a notice published in Motor Transport Gazette dated 8.6.2005, applications were invited for grant of two regular stage carriage permits for plying two return trips daily on the route in question. In response thereto, 65 applications (including application of the petitioner) were received. Vide order dated 27.1.2006, the RTA held that since the major portion of the route in question falls on the National Highway, therefore, on the route in question, as per the approved Transport Scheme dated 9.8.1990 and the modified Transport Scheme dated 21.10.1997, the stage carriage permits are required to be granted in favour of the State Transport Undertakings (hereinafter referred to as `the STUs') and the private operators in the ratio of 75:25. It was, therefore, decided that out of these two permits, one permit with return trip daily on the route in question was required to be allotted each in favour of the STUs and the private operators. Both the STUs, namely Punjab Roadways, Muktsar and Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Faridkot depot had claimed the grant of stage carriage permits on the route in question, but both the STUs were found to be not having buses in accordance with the permits possessed by them from Ferozepur region. Therefore, the RTA decided that both the permits be granted in favour of the private operators. Further, the RTA, with object to inject new blood in the transport industry and avoid the monopolistic control of the existing private operators, decided to grant both the stage CWP No. 18310 of 2007 -3- carriage permits on the route in question to the new entrants. Out of the 63 private applicants, 2 were absent, 29 applicants were existing operators and the remaining 32 were the new entrants. Consequently, after comparing the merits of the new entrants, one stage carriage permit each on the route in question was granted to Smt. Nimrat Sidhu and Sh. Sukhwant Singh. Against the said order dated 27.1.2006, 16 appeals (including appeal by the petitioner) were filed. Out of those 16 appeals, two appeals i.e. Appeal No.69 of 2006, filed by Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala and Appeal No. 222 of 2006 filed by Satinder Kaur and others, were allowed by the STAT vide order dated 10.5.2007, with a direction to the RTA to grant one permit with one return trip, and the other permit with half return trip in favour of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala and one permit with half a trip in favour of Satinder Kaur and others. It was further ordered that in case, Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala, failed to collect the permits within the stipulated period, one permit with one return trip shall be granted in favour of M/s K.K. Bus Service Regd., Moga (appellant in appeal No.4 of 2007) and one permit with half a trip daily on the route in question in favour of New Deep Bus Service Regd., Gidderbaha (appellant in appeal No. 275 of 2006). The appeals of the other appellants (including the appeal of the petitioner) were dismissed. The appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed on the ground that the same was filed by Mahesh Kumar claiming himself to be partner of the firm, but neither the partnership deed nor Form A and Form C were attached along with the CWP No. 18310 of 2007 -4- application, as required under Clause (iv) of Rule 63 of the Punjab Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. Counsel for the petitioner, while relying upon the affidavit Annexure P-10, filed in this Court, submits that the appeal of the petitioner has been wrongly dismissed by the STAT being not filed by the authorised officer, as the petitioner had duly submitted the partnership deed as well as Form A and Form C. We have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. In the impugned order, a categoric finding has been recorded by the STAT that along with the application, the petitioner has not filed the partnership deed as well as Form A and Form C, as per the requirement of the Rules. In the affidavit Annexure P-10, it has been stated that the said partnership deed and Form A as well as Form C were produced at the time of hearing before the RTA. Be as it may, we are not going into this factual controversy in the writ jurisdiction. Since in view of the Transport Scheme dated 9.8.1990, was modified on 21.10.1997, according to which the STUs and the private operators are required to be granted the stage carriage permits in the ratio of 75:25 on the monopoly route, therefore, the STAT has granted one permit with one return trip, and the other permit with half return trip in favour of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala and one permit with half a trip in favour of Satinder Kaur and others, the new entrants. Since out of the total applicants, 32 were new entrants and it was decided that the permit should be granted to the new entrant, therefore, CWP No. 18310 of 2007 -5- the petitioner (the existing operator) has not been granted the permit. Even on merits, the petitioner has no better claim. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in the impugned order. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE February 15, 2008 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) ndj JUDGE