IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 13036 of 2006 DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 19, 2008 Dhuri Bus Service Regd., Dhuri and another .....PETITIONERS Versus State of Punjab and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG --- Present: Mr.Amol Rattan Sidhu, Senior Advocate with Mr.R.K.Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.A.G.Masih, Addl.A.G.,Punjab. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. The petitioners have filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 28.8.1996 passed by the State Transport Commissioner exercising the powers of the Regional Transport Authority, whereby out of four stage carriage permits, two permits with two return trips each were granted on the route in question in favour of the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as `the PRTC') and the Punjab Roadways on the ground that the proposed route falls on the monopoly route of the State Transport Undertakings; and the order dated 9.1.2006 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as `the Tribunal') dismissing the appeal of the petitioners against the said order. In the present case, vide notice published in the Motor C.W.P. No. 13036 of 2006 -2- Transport Gazette Weekly, Chandigarh dated 15.12.1992 for grant of four regular stage carriage permits for plying four return trips daily on the route i.e. Dhuri-Beas via Malerkotla, Ahmedgarh, Ludhiana, Jalandhar, 191 applications, including the petitioners, were received. The Regional Transport Authority rejected the applications of all the private operators, including the petitioners on the ground that since the proposed route falls on the monopoly route of the State Transport Undertakings, therefore, as per the Transport Scheme dated 9.8.1990 (which was modified on 21.10.1997), the stage carriage permits on the route in question were required to be granted in favour of the State Transport Undertakings. The said order was upheld in appeal before the Tribunal. Hence, this petition. We have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned order. Undisputedly, in this case, the proposed route is 172 kms. in single length, out of which, 69 kms. portion of the route between Dhuri and Ludhiana forms part of monopoly route of the PRTC. Similarly, 42 kms. portion of the route from Jalandhar to Beas forms part of monopoly route of the Punjab Roadways. Since the aforesaid portions of the route in question fall on the monopoly routes of PRTC and the Punjab Roadways and according to the notified Transport Scheme dated 9.8.1990 only the State Transport Undertakings have the exclusive right to operate on the monopoly routes, as such the applications of the private operators, including the petitioners, were rightly rejected by the Tribunal. Further, as per Clause (4) of the amended Transport Scheme dated 21.10.1997, the private operators can be permitted to operate on the monopoly routes of State Transport Undertakings only to the extent of 20% thereof or 15 C.W.P. No. 13036 of 2006 -3- kms., whichever is less. Therefore, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal while rejecting the claim of the petitioners on the aforesaid four permits in question. 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 and they cannot be granted the stage carriage permits on those routes. Similar view was taken by this Court 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 services in general or any particular class of such service in relation to any area or route or portion thereof to be run and C.W.P. No. 13036 of 2006 -4- 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 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 C.W.P. No. 13036 of 2006 -5- 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, we do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. Dismissed. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE February 19, 2008 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) vkg JUDGE