CWP No.8568 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION : 9.5.2012 Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala through its Managing Director ...Petitioner Versus M/s Ahluwalia Mini Bus Service Regd., Barnala ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA PRESENT: Mr.Gurinder Singh Gill, Advocate for the petitioner .... Notes: 1.Whether to be referred to the reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J. This petition deserves to be dismissed on the short ground that Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala (for short “the PRTC”) cannot act like an ordinary private transporter and in the manner which appears monopolistic. Learned counsel for the PRTC submits that during the pendency of the revision petition before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab, the Government of Punjab had formulated a Scheme for Mini Bus Service in 2010 which was notified on 19.5.2010 and published on 21.5.2010. Respondent no.3 relying upon Clause 5 of the Scheme-2010 allowed the application of respondent no.1. Clause (5) of the Scheme- 2010 reads as under:- “Provided that the existing mini bus permit holders shall be allowed to continue to operate their buses on CWP No.8568 of 2011 2 the same terms and conditions on which they were operating prior to the publication of the Scheme.” The complaint is that the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab, has passed an order relying on Clause (5) of the Saving Clause made in Scheme- 2010 which is not applicable to the present case since the Scheme has prospective operation from the day it is notified. It is submitted that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal gives retrospective effect to the Scheme- 2010. The learned Tribunal has held as follows:- “13. So, in view of the principles laid down in the case laws i.e. (2000) 7 Supreme Court Cases 357 and (2010) 13 Supreme Court Cases 460, cited supra, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the provisions of the Saving Clause made in the Scheme of 2010 are not applicable to the case in hand, is held to be not tenable and the same is rejected. 14. As above discussed, the provisions as laid down in the 1st proviso attached to Clause (5) of the Scheme of 2010 are very much explicit as well as unequivocal. Moreover, the same are also found to be retrospective in nature. The provisions laid down in any transport Scheme by any Govt. are as good as the statute law framed by any law making body. The transport authorities are to follow the provisions of the Scheme as framed by the Govt. concerned, relating to the grant of fresh permits as well as relating to the variation of conditions of any existing permit, unless the same is not set aside by any Court of competent jurisdiction. 15. Certainly, the impugned order, when it was passed was quite illegal being against the provisions of the Notification of the Punjab Govt. dated 22.2.2005. But now the Saving Clause, as made in the Punjab Mini Bus Service Scheme CWP No.8568 of 2011 3 2010 has come to the rescue of respondent no.2 with regard to the extension of the route in question granted vide the impugned order. The matter would have been different, had this revision petition been decided prior to 19.5.2010 i.e. before coming into force of the Punjab Mini Bus Service Scheme, 2010.” In view of the above I see no valid or cogent reason to interfere in the well considered order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab, in the revision under Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. This petition is dismissed in limini. (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE 9.5.2012 MFK