IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 2325 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION: MARCH 10, 2008 Kailash Nath .....PETITIONER Versus The State Transport Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG --- Present: Mr.Jaspreet Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.N.D.S.Mann, Addl.A.G.,Punjab, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr.H.S.Sawhney, Senior Advocate with mr.Rajinder Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.4. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. The petitioner has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 25.1.2007 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab (hereinafter referred to as `the Appellate Tribunal'), whereby the order dated 17.10.2003 passed by the State Transport Commissioner (exercising the powers of the Regional Transport Authority) granting one stage carriage permit with half return trip daily for plying on Pathankot- Mohali via Dasuya, Jalandhar, Phagwara, Nawanshahr and Ropar route (hereinafter referred to as `the route in question') in favour of the petitioner was set aside and the said permit was granted in favour of respondent No.4, who was one of the applicant for the said permit. In the present case, the Regional Transport Authority by C.W.P. No. 2325 of 2007 -2- virtue of a notice got published in the Motor Transport Gazette Weekly, Chandigarh on 8.1.2003 invited applications for grant of four stage carriage permits for plying two return trips daily on the route in question. In response to the said publication, 41 applicants applied for grant of these permits. As per the Transport Scheme dated 9.8.1990 as modified on 21.10.1997, the major portion of the route having fallen on the National Highway, the permits had to be granted in favour of the State Transport Undertakings and the private operators in the ratio of 75:25, but since no State Transport Undertakings claimed the grant of any stage carriage permit on the route in question, the Regional Transport Authority had decided to grant the same in favour of the private operators. Thereafter, the Regional Transport Authority devised a criteria, so as to grant two stage carriage permits in favour of the existing operators and two in favour of the new entrants. Before the Regional Transport Authority, it was alleged by the petitioner that he was already holding two permits, and on the basis of those permits and considering him to be an existing operator, the Regional Transport Authority vide order dated 17.10.2003 granted one stage carriage permit on the route in question in favour of the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid order, respondent No.4 filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. Before the Appellate Tribunal, it was pleaded by respondent No.4 that actually the petitioner was not holding any permit on any route because in the affidavit attached along with his application the petitioner had deposed himself to be unemployed and against the column meant for holding any temporary/regular stage carriage permit for operation of buses/mini buses C.W.P. No. 2325 of 2007 -3- on the routes issued by the Regional Transport Authorities, it has been recorded by the petitioner as “Nil”. Thus, it was argued by the said respondent that the petitioner had procured the aforesaid permit by making misrepresentation and playing fraud on the authority. Therefore, the grant of one stage carriage permit to him was liable to be set aside. By accepting the appeal of the said respondent, the Appellate Tribunal set aside the grant of one stage carriage permit in favour of the petitioner and granted the said permit to respondent No.4, who was an existing operator, while observing as under:- “25. As regarding the grant made by the RTA in favour of respondent No.4, namely Kailash Nath, treating him to be an existing operator, there is nothing on record to show that he was holding any permit on any route. As discussed earlier, the affidavit filed by respondent No.4 in support of his application does not contain the particulars as required to be given in compliance with Clause (iii) of Rule 63 of the Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. The learned counsel for respondent No.4 has also not been able to produce the permits, if any, held by respondent No.4 at the time of the filing of the application for the grant of the permit or even at the time of the hearing of the same by the RTA. Therefore, the observation, to have been made by the RTA in the impugned order that Kailash Nath being an existing operator had the sufficient experience of serving the needs of the travelling public is without any basis and, therefore, this respondent has to be treated as a new entrant and not an existing operator. The grant made in favour of the new entrant i.e. respondents No.2 and 3 could not be challenged by any of the appellants or even the learned counsel for respondent No.4. I am, therefore, of the considered view that the grant in favour of respondent No.4 can not be upheld and C.W.P. No. 2325 of 2007 -4- the same has got to be set aside.” Against the aforesaid order, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned Appellate Tribunal has erred in law while misinterpreting the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') and while coming to the conclusion that the petitioner was required to disclose the permits held by him in the application. The learned counsel submits that merely because the petitioner did not comply with the rules prescribed under Section 68(2)(c) of the Act, his application should not have been rejected on the ground that he had not disclosed all the facts. He further contended that the Regional Transport Authority after holding that the petitioner was having two route permits with two mini buses and considering that the petitioner was having sufficient experience of the transport line, rightly granted one stage carriage permit with half return trip daily for plying on the route in question. Merely because the petitioner has failed to point out in the affidavit that he was holding permit at the time of making of the application, the grant of permit to him should not have been set aside. Rather, two permits held by the petitioner were presented before the Regional Transport Authority and this fact finds mention in the order passed by the said Authority. On the other hand, counsel for respondent No.4 while referring to the record of the case submitted that the petitioner deliberately filed a false affidavit in which he has not disclosed the permits held by C.W.P. No. 2325 of 2007 -5- him and wrongly claimed himself to be unemployed. He further submitted that every applicant is supposed to supply the correct information in his application. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner deliberately filed the said affidavit in order to show him as new entrant so that he can take benefit of the said fact in case it is decided that the permits are to be granted to the new entrants. Learned counsel also submitted that in view of Section 86(1)(d) of the Act even the permit granted to a person is liable to be cancelled if the same is obtained on the basis of misrepresentation and fraud. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that in this case the learned Appellate Tribunal has rightly set aside the grant of permit in favour of the petitioner as he had deliberately made misrepresentation and filed a wrong affidavit before the Regional Transport Authority, therefore, the said order is not required to be interfered in an equitable jurisdiction of this court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. After hearing the counsel for the parties, we do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order in exercise of the inherent powers of this court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. We have perused the record. In this case, along with his application for grant of the aforesaid permit, the petitioner filed an affidavit in which he has described him as unemployed and holding no permit on any route. Therefore, in the application, he claimed himself to be the new entrant. However, the Regional Transport Authority has considered the claim of the petitioner as an existing operator on the basis of his holding two permits of mini buses. This fact was not mentioned in the application. Rather, it was specifically stated in the affidavit that the petitioner was not C.W.P. No. 2325 of 2007 -6- holding any permit. Therefore, in our opinion, the Appellate Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the Regional Transport Authority has committed an illegality while considering the claim of the petitioner as an existing operator particularly when in the document annexed along with his application, he himself claimed to be a new entrant. It appears that the petitioner deliberately concealed the said fact because at that time he might be having the idea that the permit may be granted to the new entrant. However, when it was decided that the permit was going to be granted in favour of the existing operator, then he disclosed that he was holding two permits. In our opinion, if a person deliberately files a wrong affidavit and makes misstatement before the Authority, he is not entitled for any relief from the said Authority. Thus, keeping in view such conduct of the petitioner, the Appellate Tribunal has rightly set aside the grant of one stage carriage permit on the route in question to the petitioner. We are of the opinion that if a person does not approach the Court with clean hands, he is not entitled for any relief. Therefore, we do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order passed by the Appellate Tribunal in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court. In view of the aforesaid, we find no merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE March 10, 2008 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) vkg JUDGE