IN THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CIVIL WRIT PETITION 18674 OF 2007 DATE OF DECISION : August 8 ,2008 The Barwala Janta Co-operative Transport Society ....Petitioner Versus The State Transport Appellate Tribunal & others ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present: Mr.I.P.Goyat, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.Baldev Kapur, Advocate, for the respondent No.2 Mr.O.P.Sharma, Addl.A.G., Haryana for respondents 3 & 4 AJAY TEWARI, J The petitioner had applied for and was granted Regular Stage Carriage Permit on route Number 16 of Hisar district while respondent No.2 was granted permit of route number 64 in district Sirsa. The said respondent moved an application for transfer of its permit from Sirsa to route Number 17, Hisar which was having more than 90% common portion with route Number 16 (Hisar) held by the petitioner. Originally, the Regional Transport Authority, Hisar, declined the request of respondent No.2 vide order dated 09-11-2005. However, in the next meeting dated 06-01-2006, the prayer of the respondent No.2 was allowed and it was granted temporary permit for route Number 17, Hisar. Subsequently, vide order dated 03-08-2007, the Regional Transport Authroity, Hisar directed that respondent No.2 be sent back to its original route Number 64 of district Sirsa. The order dated 03-08-2007 was challenged by respondent No.2 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal who allowed the appeal by order --2-- dated 15-11-2007 and permitted respondent No.2 to continue operation of route Number 17, Hisar upto 26-10-2009. It is this order which has been challenged in the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner urges that there is no provision for transfer of a permit and that under Section 80(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 any application , any permit other than a temporary permit would have the effect of grant of fresh permit and that such fresh permit could only be granted under the notification Annexure P-1 dated 03-11-1993 formulated by the State of Haryana approving the scheme formulated in pursuance to Section 100(2) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 after obtaining fresh application and giving an opportunity of being heard to other persons. We are not impressed by these arguments as learned counsel for respondent No.2 pointed out that in the notification dated 03-11-1993, clause (ii) specifies as follows :- “All the Intra-District route which do not cover more than total of 10 kms on National/State Highways, would be offered for private operation and Haryana Roadways buses will not ply on such routes.” Thus, both route Numbers 16 and 17, Hisar admittedly fall in this clause. The grant of permits of these routes would, thus, be covered under Section 80(Chapter V). In Mithilesh Garg etc. versus Union of India etc. AIR 1992, SC 443, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:- “A comparative reading of the provisins of the Act and the Sold Act (1939) makes it clear that the procedure for grant of permits under the new Act has been liberalised to such an extent that an intended operator can get a permit for asking irrespective of the number of operators already in the field. The scheme envisaged under Sections 47 and 57 of the old Act has been completely done away with by the Act. The right of --3-- existing operators to file objections and the provision to impose limit on the number of permits have been taken away. There is no similar provisions to that of Section 47 and S.57 under the new Act. The statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act shows that the purpose of bringing in the Act was to liberalise the grant of permits.” In this view of the matter, even though there may have been some procedural irregularities in the grant of a permit of route Number 17, Hisar to respondent No.2, the petitioner would have no locus standi to challenge the same. In view of the above, this petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. Sd/- [Ajay Tewari] Judge sd/- [Hemant Gupta] August 8 ,2008 Judge