IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 713 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 15, 2008 Ravi Dass Bus Highways Regd., Ludhiana .....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.Baldev Kapoor, Advocate, for the petitioner. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 24.1.1996 passed by the State Transport Commissioner exercising the powers of the Regional Transport Authority, whereby while rejecting the applications of the private operators, including the petitioner, two regular stage carriage permits on Sangrur to Hoshiarpur via Ludhiana, Phagwara route (hereinafter referred to as `the route in question') were granted in favour of the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as `the PRTC'); and the order dated 1.8.2007 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as `the Tribunal') dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the said order. We have heard the counsel for the petitioner and gone C.W.P. No. 713 of 2008 -2- through the impugned order. In this case in the year 1992, the applications for grant of two regular stage carriage permits for plying two return trips daily on the route in question were invited in the public interest. In response thereto, 134 applications were received. The Regional Transport Authority rejected the applications of the private operators, including the petitioner while coming to the conclusion that in view of Clause (4) made in the Transport Scheme as notified by the Punjab Government vide notification dated 9.8.1990 (which was subsequently modified vide notification dated 21.10.1997), the private operators could not be granted stage carriage permits on the monopoly routes. The said order on appeal has been upheld by the Tribunal. Undisputedly, a portion of the route in question i.e. from Sangrur to Ludhiana, having a single length of 84 kms. is a part of two monopoly routes of PRTC i.e. (i) Sangrur to Ahmedgarh via Malerkotla; and (ii) Patiala to Ludhiana via Nabha, Malerkotla and Ahmedgarh, and as per Clause (4) of the amended Transport Scheme dated 9.8.1997 which was modified on 21.10.1997, the private operators can be permitted to operate on the monopoly routes only to the extent of 20% thereof or 15 kms. whichever is less. Since the single length of the monopoly route in question is 84 kms., therefore, as per Clause (4) of the modified Transport Scheme dated 21.10.1997, the private operators cannot be permitted to operate on the monopoly routes. Section 103(2) of the Act clearly provides that after coming into force of the Transport Scheme framed by the State Government under Section 100 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the private operators cannot be allowed to operate on the monopoly routes C.W.P. No. 713 of 2008 -3- and they cannot be granted the stage carriage permits. Counsel for the petitioner raised a contention that in the year 1996 PRTC surrendered one permit granted in its favour and the same was cancelled by the authority, therefore, keeping in view this fact, two permits should not have been granted to the same Corporation. The said contention was also raised before the Tribunal and was rejected on the ground that those permits were surrendered pertaining to the route which did not fall on the monopoly routes of the State Transport Undertaking. Therefore, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal while rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the aforesaid two permits in question. This court has already taken a similar view in C.W.P. No. 297 of 2007 titled as `Raj Transport Company Pvt. Ltd., Amritsar Versus State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab and others', decided on 12.2.2008, while making the following observations:- “Under the Act of 1988, Chapter V deals with control of transport vehicles, which includes grant of stage carriage permits by the transport authorities. Chapter VI deals with special provisions relating to State Transport Undertakings. Section 98, which falls under Chapter VI provides that the provisions of this Chapter and the rules and orders made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in Chapter V or in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law. Section 99 deals with preparation and publication of proposal regarding road transport service of a State Transport Undertaking. This section empowers the State Government to formulate a Transport Scheme for the purpose of providing an efficient, adequate, economical and properly co-ordinated road transport service to the public or for providing transport C.W.P. No. 713 of 2008 -4- services in general or any particular class of such service in relation to any area or route or portion thereof to be run and operated by the State Transport Undertaking. Section 103 (1) provides as under : Where, in pursuance of an approved scheme, any State Transport Undertaking applies in such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government in this behalf for a stage carriage permit or a goods carriage permit or a contract carriage permit in respect of a notified area or notified route, the State Transport Authority in any case where the said area or route lies in more than one region and the Regional Transport Authority in any other case shall issue such permit to the State Transport Undertaking, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Chapter V. Sub-section (2) of Section 103 further provides that for the purpose of giving effect to the approved scheme in respect of a notified area or notified route, the State Transport Authority may by order refuse to entertain any application for the grant of renewal of any other permit or reject any such application as may be pending. Section 104 provides for restriction on grant of permits in respect of a notified area or notified route, which read as under:- “Where a scheme has been published under sub-section (3) of Section 100 in respect of any notified area or notified route, the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority, as the case may be, shall not grant any permit except in accordance with the provisions of the scheme : Provided that where no application for a permit has been made by the State Transport Undertaking in respect of any notified area or notified route in pursuance of an approved scheme, the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority, as the case may be, may grant temporary permits to any person in respect of such notified C.W.P. No. 713 of 2008 -5- area or notified route subject to the condition that such permit shall cease to be effective on the issue of a permit to the State Transport Undertaking in respect of that area or route.” In the aforesaid provisions, which fall under Chapter VI of the Act, it has been categorically stated that after coming into force of the scheme formulated and published by the State, no permit can be granted for operation by a private operator on the notified monopoly route. In view of these provisions, in our opinion, the learned Appellate Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioners for allotment of the two remaining stage carriage permits as major portion of the said route, undisputedly, is a monopoly route on which only the State Transport Undertaking can operate.” In view of the aforesaid, there is no merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE February 15, 2008 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) vkg JUDGE