IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 5031 of 2006 DATE OF DECISION: APRIL 04, 2008 Baba Bus Service Regd., Fazilka .....PETITIONER Versus The State of Punjab and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG --- Present: Mr.P.K.Mutneja, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.N.D.S.Mann, Addl.A.G.,Punjab, for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr.H.S.Sawhney, Sr.Advocate with Mr.B.S.Giri, Advocate, for respondent No.5. Mr.Arvinder Singh, Advocate, for Mr.Lekh Raj Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.6. Mr.Baldev Kapoor, Advocate, for respondents No.7 and 8. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. Baba Bus Service Regd., Fazilka has filed the instant petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 5.6.1997 passed by the State Transport Commissioner, exercising the powers of Regional Transport Authority as well as the order dated 24.5.2005 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as `the Appellate Tribunal') being illegal and unconstitutional, with a direction to respondent No.2 to grant one permit with one return trip daily to the petitioner on Qadian-Abohar via Batala, Amritsar, Tarn Taran, Harike, Makhu, Kot Ise Khan, Moga, Bagha C.W.P. No. 5031 of 2006 -2- Purana, Kot Kapura, Muktsar, Malout route (hereinafter referred to as `the route in question'). In the present case, the applications were invited by the Regional Transport Authority for grant of four regular stage carriage permits for plying two return trips daily on the route in question. In response to the said notice/invitation published in the Motor Transport Gazette Weekly, Chandigarh, 99 applications were received. Since the major portion of the route in question, which is 311 Kms. falls on the State Highway and National Highway, therefore, keeping in view the State Transport Policy dated 9.8.1990 which was modified on 21.10.1997, the Regional Transport Authority decided to grant two permits with one return trip daily to the State Transport Undertakings and two permits with one return trip daily to the private operators. The Regional Transport Authority further decided to grant two permits for private operators to the new entrants in order to inject new blood in the transport industry and to avoid the monopolistic control of the private operators. Since Pepsu Road Transport Corporation submitted the application for the grant of two permits, two permits which were to be granted to the State Transport Undertakings, were granted to the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation. Out of the remaining applicants, 43 applicants were the new entrants and rest were the existing operators. The Regional Transport Authority after considering the comparative merits of all the eligible applicants from new entrants, granted one permit each to Gurjit Singh and Smt. Harmeet Kaur with ½ return trip daily, respectively, vide order dated 5.6.1997. The claim of the petitioner was also considered but the permit was not granted to it because it was already holding stage carriage permits. C.W.P. No. 5031 of 2006 -3- Against the aforesaid order of the Regional Transport Authority, six appeals were filed, including by the petitioner. Before the Appellate Tribunal, it was argued by the petitioner that the Regional Transport Authority has wrongly treated it as an existing operator. He submitted that in the affidavit filed by the petitioner before the Regional Transport Authority along with its application, it was categorically stated that the petitioner was not an existing operator. In spite of that clear averments, the Regional Transport Authority had treated the petitioner as an existing operator without there being any material to that effect. The Appellate Tribunal after considering the material available on the record has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner, while observing as under:- “......Even though the appellant of appeal No.554/98, in its application for permit, claimed to be a new entrant, yet the fact is that at the time of hearing of the applications, the RTA found that it was an existing operator. No affidavit/evidence to contradict this finding has been submitted before this Tribunal. The contention of learned counsel for respondent No.3 to the effect that this appellant and its different partners have been granted 17 permits by the RTA vide order dated 23.09.2002 has not been controverted by its counsel during arguments. Therefore, this appeal and appeal No.807/97 are liable to be dismissed on account of their status of existing operators.” The Appellate Tribunal on further consideration of the matter upheld the grant of one permit each with half return daily on the route in question to Gurjit Singh and Smt.Harmeet Kaur, who were the new entrants. However, during the pendency of the appeal, it was noticed that Pepsu Road Transport Corporation had surrendered two permits granted to it in the year 1998. All the appellants put their claims against those C.W.P. No. 5031 of 2006 -4- permits. The Appellate Tribunal while taking into consideration the convenience of the travelling public, vide order dated 24.5.2005 granted those permits, after assessing the comparative merits of all the six appellants, to appellants Kahlon Bus Service Regd., Amritsr (appellant in Appeal No.810 of 1997) and Deep Transport Co-operative Society Limited, Amritsar (appellant in Appeal No.1042 of 1997). Against the said order, the petitioner has filed the instant petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Regional Transport Authority as well as the Appellate Tribunal have erred in law as well as on facts while treating the petitioner as an existing operator as in the affidavit filed along with the application for grant of the permit, the petitioner had categorically stated that it was not an existing operator. Learned counsel submitted that no counter affidavit was filed by any applicant to contradict the averments made by the petitioner in the said affidavit, therefore, both the authorities have committed grave illegality. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that Baba Bus Service Regd., Fazilka is a big transport concern possessing many stage carriage permits. Learned counsel submitted that before the Appellate Tribunal, specific material was placed, which has been quoted in the impugned order, showing that the petitioner has been holding the stage carriage permits and the said material was neither contradicted by the petitioner before the Appellate Tribunal nor before this court. Therefore, he submits that the Regional Transport Authority as well as the Appellate Tribunal have rightly recorded a pure finding of C.W.P. No. 5031 of 2006 -5- fact that the petitioner was an existing operator and the said finding does not require any interference. After considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any ground to interfere in the finding of fact recorded by both the authorities as along with this petition, the petitioner did not place any material to show that it was not an existing operator except that it has so stated in the petition. In the impugned order, the Appellate Tribunal has mentioned a specific order vide which three permits were granted to the petitioner. Even in the present petition the petitioner has not controverted the said fact. Further, in the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No.6, the details of various permits granted to the petitioner concern and its partners have been mentioned. The petitioner has also not controverted those averments by filing a replication. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any ground to interfere in the findings of fact recorded by both the authorities. Dismissed. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE April 04, 2008 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) vkg JUDGE