IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 1249 of 2006 DATE OF DECISION : 13.03.2008 Punjab Roadways, Chandigarh .... PETITIONER Versus Kharar Transport Company (Regd.) Kharar and another ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr. N.D.S. Mann, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for the petitioner. None for the respondents. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The Punjab Roadways, Chandigarh, through its General Manager has filed the instant writ petition challenging the order dated 2.6.2004, passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as `the Appellate Tribunal'), whereby one regular regular stage carriage permit with one return trip daily on Ropar-Chandigarh via Kakron route (hereinafter referred to as `the route in question') has been granted in favour of Kharar Transport Company (Regd.), Kharar, respondent No.1 herein. In the present case, the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab, CWP No. 1249 of 2006 -2- exercising the powers of Regional Transport Authority, Patiala (hereinafter referred to as `the STC'), in its meeting held on 8.12.1976, granted one temporary stage carriage permit for plying one return trip daily on the route in question each in favour of the Punjab Roadways, Chandigarh and the Ambala Bus Syndicate Pvt. Ltd., Ropar. But these permits were not lifted by both the grantees. Thereafter, these permits were allotted from time to time on temporary basis. The system of issuing temporary stage carriage permits on the routes continued till 27.7.1987, when the Supreme Court in its judgment in Civil Appeal No. 1522 of 1987 arising out of SLP (Civil) No.8847 of 1986 ordered the cessation of all temporary permits and directed the grant of regular stage carriage permits on all those routes where the need of the travelling public is of permanent nature. Thereafter, in compliance of the aforesaid judgment, applications for the grant of two regular stage carriage permits for plying two return trips daily on the route in question were invited through a notice published in the Motor Transport Gazette Weekly, Chandigarh dated 1.1.1986. In response thereto, many applications were received, which were processed. When the matter was considered by the STC on 26.4.1990, the new Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') came into operation. Under this new Act, a draft scheme was notified by the President of India for the purpose of providing an efficient, adequate, economical and properly co-ordinated road transport services in relation to CWP No. 1249 of 2006 -3- certain areas and routes, which were exclusively to be operated by the State Transport Undertaking. The said draft scheme was notified and published on 11.8.1989 in the name of President of India, because at that time, the State of Punjab was under the President Rule. According to Clause (2) of the said draft scheme, all inter-state routes were to be operated by the State Transport Undertaking as hither to fore and present operation of private operators was to remain uneffected till the validity of their route permits. Since the route in question was inter-state route, therefore, in accordance with the draft scheme, the Punjab Roadways, Chandigarh was found only rightful claimant for those two permits and accordingly, both the stage carriage permits were granted to it for plying two return trips daily on the route in question for a period of three years. The aggrieved party could file the appeal under Section 89 of the Act within a period of 30 days from the date of order. Respondent No.1 herein, who was also one of the applicants before the STC, did not file any appeal against the aforesaid order, within the time prescribed. However, after about five years, respondent No.1 filed an appeal against the said order before the Appellate Tribunal, who after getting the report from the Chandigarh and Ropar depots of the Punjab Roadways found that both the permits have not been lifted by the Punjab Roadways, therefore, granted one permit on the route in question in favour of respondent No.1, while observing that in view of the decision of this Court in Sirhind Bus Service Registered, Sirhind v. State Transport Commissioner, Punjab and another, 2002 (3) PLR 816, even on the inter-state route, Clause (2) of the CWP No. 1249 of 2006 -4- Transport Scheme dated 9.8.1990 does not restrict the grant of permit to the private operators, because the said Scheme framed and approved under Sections 99 and 100 of the Act, touching the inter-state routes, has not been approved by the Central Government. It was not at all considered by the Appellate Tribunal that the appeal filed by respondent No.1 was hopelessly time barred and even the period of permit had expired. In this writ petition, the Punjab Roadways has challenged the aforesaid order, passed by the Appellate Tribunal. Respondent No.1, who is the only effected party, has been duly served by way of publication, but none is present on its behalf. Therefore, we have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while referring to the averments made in the writ petition, which have not been controverted at all, submits that there are two categories of Bus Operators in the State of Punjab. One category is State Transport Undertakings (hereinafter referred to as `the STUs') and the other is private operators. The buses of the STUs are being run by the State Government, while the private buses are being operated by private bus operators. Learned counsel further submits that vide notification dated 11.8.1989, a draft scheme was notified by the President of India for the purpose of providing an efficient, adequate, economical and properly co-ordinated road transport services in relation to certain areas and routes, which were exclusively to be operated by the State Transport Undertaking. The said draft scheme was notified and published in the name CWP No. 1249 of 2006 -5- of President of India, because at that time, the State of Punjab was under the President Rule. Subsequently, the said draft scheme was finally approved and notified vide notification dated 9.8.1990, which was also issued in the name of the President of India, because at that time also, the State of Punjab was under the President Rule. Clause (2) of the said Scheme provides that all the inter-state routes shall be operated by the STUs as hither-to-fore and present operation of private operators shall remain unaffected till the validity of their route permits or for three years from the date of final publication of the Scheme, which ever is later and this may be revived after three years by the State Government, provided that the routes operated by the private operators which become inter-state routes as a result of re- organisation of the State of Punjab in the year 1966 shall not be affected by the Scheme. Since the route in question was inter-state route, therefore, vide order dated 26.4.1990, passed by the STC, the petitioner was granted two regular stage carriage permits for plying two return trips daily on the route in question for a period of three years. Respondent No.1, in spite of having the knowledge of the said order, did not challenge the same within the limitation prescribed. However, the permits allotted to the petitioner could not be lifted for some time, because of non-availability of the new buses. Taking advantage of this fact, respondent No.1 filed appeal against the order dated 26.4.1990, at a highly belated stage, in the year 1995, without giving any explanation or reason. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prior to filing of the appeal, the period of permits had also lapsed However, the Appellate Tribunal, while totally ignoring these facts, has CWP No. 1249 of 2006 -6- passed the impugned order granting one permit to respondent No.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the route in question is an inter-state route and as per Clause (2) of the Transport Scheme, as modified vide notification dated 21.10.1997, only the STUs can operate buses on the inter-state route. He submits that even the Chandigarh Administration has framed a Scheme during the year 1998 for operating the bus service in Chandigarh and after the said Scheme, which was formulated under the Act, only Chandigarh Transport Undertaking can operate on the inter-state route and no private operator or agency is permitted to operate in the Union Territory, Chandigarh. Learned counsel further submits that the Appellate Tribunal, while passing the impugned order and granting permit to respondent No.1, has totally ignored the fact that part of the route in question falls within the Union Territory, Chandigarh and as per the aforesaid Scheme framed by the Chandigarh Administration, no private operator can operate the buses in Chandigarh. He submits that the Appellate Tribunal has not considered all these facts, while passing the impugned order, which is totally illegal and violative of the Transport Scheme dated 9.8.1990 and the Scheme formulated by the Chandigarh Administration. Learned counsel further pointed out that the observations made by this Court in Sirhind Bus Service Registered, Sirhind v. State Transport Commissioner, Punjab and another (supra) to the effect that the transport scheme notified on 9.8.1990 was not approved by the Central Government was based on wrong admission, because at that time, the State of Punjab was under the President Rule and the draft scheme dated 11.8.1989 as well CWP No. 1249 of 2006 -7- as the final scheme dated 9.8.1990 were issued in the name of the President of India and no separate approval of the Central Government was required. Since no body has appeared on behalf of respondent No.1 to controvert these facts, therefore, we are of the opinion that on the route in question, no private operator could have been granted the stage carriage permit, particularly when even the Chandigarh Administration has also formulated a Scheme, which does not permit a private operator to operate in the area of Union Territory, Chandigarh. Since part of the route in question falls within the Union Territory, Chandigarh, the granting of permit on the inter-state route to the private operator is also contrary to the notified Scheme dated 9.8.1990. We are further of the opinion that the Appellate Tribunal had wrongly entertained the appeal, filed by respondent No.1 after about four years of the passing of the order by the STC, in spite of the fact that respondent No.1 was having knowledge of the same, and particularly when the period of permit had already expired. In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 2.6.2004, passed by the Appellate Tribunal, is hereby set aside. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE March 13, 2008 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) ndj JUDGE