Civil Writ Petition No. 1835 of 1991 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 1835 of 1991 Date of decision : 29.08.2011 M/s Abrol Bus Service Regd. Batala .....Petitioner VERSUS The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab at Chandigarh and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Baldev Kapoor, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vivek Chauhan, AAG, Punjab for the State. Mr. Jagdish Marwaha, Advocate for respondent No. 3. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. M/s Abrol Bus Service Regd. Batala, District Gurdaspur has filed this writ petition for setting aside the order dated 31.10.1990 passed by respondent No. 1. The petitioner is engaged in the business of providing stage carriage services to the travelling public. Reference is made to two separate schemes which envisaged progressive nationalization of road transport in the erstwhile areas of operation of Punjab and Pepsu Road Transport Corporation. The scheme popularly known as 60:40 scheme of Punjab and Pepsu Road Transport Corporation expired on 18.11.1976 and 30.06.1977 respectively. Neither the Punjab Roadways nor Pepsu Road Transport Corporation were able to take over the stage carriage operation from the private operators. Civil Writ Petition No. 1835 of 1991 2 After expiry of the above referred scheme, fresh transport policy was not framed and in the absence thereof, the State Transport Commissioner exercising the power of all the three Regional Transport Authorities started issuing temporary bus permits even on those routes where need was for grant of regular permit. Even after the expiry of the scheme, no regular permit was issued. The State Transport Commissioner granted one temporary stage carriage permits with return trip to the petitioner to operate in the year 1978 and one permit with one return trip to Punjab Roadways, Muktsar in the year 1980. The Punjab Roadways, Muktsar continued to operate the stage carriage services on temporary basis. Some of the transport companies approached Hon'ble Supreme Court through Civil Appeal No. 1522 of 1987 and the Hon'ble Court vide its judgment dated 27.07.1987 had directed the State Transport Commissioner to grant regular stage carriage permit by inviting applications suo motu on all the routes where there was a regular need. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had deprecated the practice of issuing temporary permits on these routes where the need was regular. These directions were given in case reported as Jagjit Bus Service versus State AIR 1987 Supreme Court 2272 . Pursuant to the directions so issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the applications were invited for two regular stage carriage permits to operate two return trips on Amritsar-Pathankot via Batala, Gurdaspur, Dinanagar route. The notice was published on 08.01.1988. There was a note endorsed in the advertisement to the effect that number of permits and return trips are subject to increase and decrease. Considering the need and the requirement, the State Civil Writ Petition No. 1835 of 1991 3 Transport Commissioner through his order dated 21.12.1988 noticed that there was increase in the traffic on Amritsar-Pathankot route referred to above and its existing arrangements were not enough to cater the requirement of travelling public. The State Transport Commissioner, accordingly, was of the view that in public interest, it was essential to increase the number of permits and trips on this route for the convenience of the travelling public. The State Transport Commissioner, accordingly, allowed one return trip daily each to Chaudhary Transport Company Registered, Hoshiarpur, Punjab Roadways, Muktsar and to the petitioner. Against this order, some of the aggrieved applicants had filed appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, who though had upheld the order granting the permit in favour of the Chaudhary Transport Company Registered, Hoshiarpur, Punjab Roadways, Muktsar but set aside the permit granted to the petitioner on the ground that the permit with one return trip was granted to the petitioner after increasing the trip, which was invalid. Against this order, the petitioner had filed the present writ petition. The counsel submits that the requirement of increase was rightly noticed by the State Transport Commissioner and this was in tune with the advertisement issued. Accordingly, it is urged that the order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal would be unjust and unreasonable. In support, counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to the order passed in CWP No. 2277 of 1991 titled as Lal Singh and others versus State Transport Appellate Tribunal and others decided on 12.07.2011 where on similar consideration, this Civil Writ Petition No. 1835 of 1991 4 Court has set aside the order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. While taking this view, this Court in Lal Singh's case (supra) has relied upon an order passed in CWP No. 15458 of 1990 titled as Bhagowal Dalam Bus Service Regd. V. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab etc. where similar issue had come up for consideration before this Court. The relevant observation of the Court are as under:- “ A perusal of the order dated 26.10.1988 shows that the State Transport Commissioner before considering the grant of permits has observed that the traffic on the route had increased warranting increase in the permits and trips to be plied on this route. Accordingly, in view of the requirement of the travelling public, he increased the number of permits on the route by one with one return trip daily. It is not in dispute that such a power vests with the State Transport Commissioner. Not only this, even the advertisement itself contained a provision to this effect. Thus, the number of route permits to be granted were increased from two to three. Accordingly, one route permit each was granted to the petitioners and respondent No. 3. A bare perusal of the order of the Tribunal shows that it has overlooked the findings of the State Transport Commissioner whereby the number of route permits had been increased from two to three. It has proceeded on the assumption that only two route permits were to be granted. Thus, the order of the Tribunal has proceeded on a factual error. In fact, action Civil Writ Petition No. 1835 of 1991 5 of the State Transport Commissioner in increasing the route permits from two to three was not even challenged before the Tribunal.” This judgment was followed by this Court in another Civil Writ Petition No. 15586 of 1990 titled as M/s Jai Guru Dev Transport Co. versus State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab and others decided on 15.12.2008. It may also need a notice that while issuing notice of motion, this Court had stayed the passing of the final order. As a result thereof, the petitioner had continued to operate on the routes as no application thereafter had been invited afresh. In view of the law laid down and noticed above, the view of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal to set aside the order passed by the State Transport Commissioner on the ground that the route permit was granted after increasing trip advertised, cannot be held justified. It may also have to be noticed that it was well advertised and well known in the advertisement itself that the trips were likely to increase or decrease. While granting the permit in favour of the petitioner, the State Transport Commissioner had duly noticed the fact that requirement had increased and, accordingly, he was fully justified in passing this order. In view of the law laid down by this Court and the fact that the petitioner has continued to operate this route ever since that date, no case for upholding the impugned order is made out. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal is set aside and the order passed by the State Transport Commissioner is restored. The petitioner shall continue to operate on the route. Civil Writ Petition No. 1835 of 1991 6 The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. Civil Writ Petition No. 1837 of 1991 The legal issue involved in this writ petition is also the similar. The different facts as pleaded in this writ petition may have to be noticed. The petitioner in this writ petition is also aggrieved against the impugned order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, which has interfered with the order passed by the State Transport Commissioner allowing them the route permit but the trips, as allowed, have been reduced by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The background remains the same. In view of the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagjit Bus Service case (supra), the applications were invited by the State Transport Commissioner for one permit with three return trips daily. The petitioner as well as Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Bathinda had filed an application for grant of permit on Mansa- Talwandi Saboo route. Similar note was endorsed in the advertisement that the trips were likely to increase or decrease. The State Transport Commissioner after considering the relevant facts allowed one permit with two return trips daily and one permit with three return trips daily to Pepsu Road Transport Coproration, Bathinda. The prayer of the petitioner had been allowed in the reserved category of Scheduled Castes, he being the only applicant. The applicants, who were unsuccessful, filed an appeal against this order before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, however, has upheld the allotment but has reduced the trip to one return trip in favour of the petitioner Gurjant Singh and one permit with two return trips in favour of Pepsu Civil Writ Petition No. 1835 of 1991 7 Road Transport Corporation, Barnala. The petitioner, Gurjant Singh, has, accordingly, challenged this order. Counsel for the petitioner has raised the same argument and has relied upon the same judgments as noticed above. In view of the reasoning given above, the present writ petition would also deserve to be allowed. The order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal cannot be sustained as there was a valid reason given by the State Transport Commissioner by allotting route permits with return trips. The justification to reduce the trip, accordingly, is not fair and valid. The impugned order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal qua the petitioner is set aside. Since the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Bhatinda has not challenged the order, hence the order passed by the Tribunal concerning Pepsu Road Transport Corporation would not call for any interference. Otherwise also, it is intimated that the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Bhatinda had surrendered this route. The writ petition is allowed. The petitioner will be permitted to run the trips as allowed by the State Transport Commissioner. August 29, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE