IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 19482 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION : 09.04.2008 Guru Hargobind Sahib Transport Company Regd., Ludhiana .... PETITIONER Versus State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr. Baldev Kapoor, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. N.D.S. Mann, Addl. A.G., Punjab. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 11.7.2007, passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as `the Appellate Tribunal'), whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 25.10.2001, passed by the State Transport commissioner, Punjab, exercising the powers of Regional Transport Authority, Jalandhar (hereinafter referred to as `the RTA') has been dismissed. The brief facts of the case are that with a view to provide direct CWP No. 19482 of 2007 -2- Bus Service to the traveling public on Nawanshahr-Moga via Rahon, Phillaur, Ludhiana, Mullanpur, Jagraon route (hereinafter referred to as `the route in question'), the RTA got published a notice in the Motor Transport Gazette (Weekly) Chandigarh dated 22.5.2001, inviting applications for the grant of 5 Stage Carriage Permits for plying five return trips daily on the route in question. In response thereto, 78 applications were received. However, at the time of hearing, 14 applicants did not appear before the RTA. Since the major portion of the route in question falls on the State Highways, therefore, as per the approved Transport Scheme dated 9.8.1990, as modified on 21.10.1997, the Stage Carriage Permits were required to be granted in favour of the State Transport Undertakings and the private operators in the ratio of 40:60. Accordingly, out of five permits, PRTC, Ludhiana Depot and Punjab Roadways, Nawanshahr, the STUs, were granted one permit with one return trip daily each. In order to avoid monopolistic control of the existing operators in the transport industry and to inject new blood therein, the RTA decided to grant the remaining three permits in favour of the new entrants. Accordingly, after considering the merits and qualifications of all the eligible applicants, the RTA granted one permit with one return trip daily each to Didar Singh, Lakhwinder Singh and Pritam Singh Dhillon. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid order, passed by the RTA, the petitioner filed appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, counsel for the petitioner CWP No. 19482 of 2007 -3- did not press the appeal against Lakhwinder Singh and Pritam Singh Dhillon and an application was filed by the petitioner claiming the permit, which was not lifted by the Punjab Roadways, Nawanshahar. However, during the pendency of appeal, the General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Nawanshahr deposited the permit fee of Rs. 10,000/- with the RTA and claimed the permit by disclosing that they had no intimation regarding the grant of permit, now they have purchased the new buses and want to operate on the route in question. Keeping in view this fact, the Appellate Tribunal held that it will not be expedient to grant the said permit in favour of the petitioner. The appeal was also found to be barred by limitation and the same was accordingly dismissed. After hearing counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the Appellate Tribunal has rightly declined to grant the permit in favour of the petitioner, which was earlier not lifted by the STU. Once the Punjab Roadways, Nawanshahar has approached the RTA for the grant of permit in its favour and learned counsel for the petitioner does not challenge the order of the RTA granting the permit in favour of the Punjab Roadways, Nawanhshar, the same cannot be granted to the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid facts, we are of the opinion that the claim of the petitioner on the permit already granted in favour of Punjab Roadways, Nawanshahar, cannot be allowed. Even otherwise, as per the provision of Section 104 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, where a scheme has been published under sub-section (3) of Section 100 in respect of any CWP No. 19482 of 2007 -4- notified area or notified route, the State Transport Authority 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 the said notified area or notified route in pursuance of an approved scheme, the State Transport Authority may grant the said permit temporarily to the private operator subject to the condition that such permit shall cease to be effective on the issue of a permit to the State Transport Undertaking in respect of that route. Undisputedly, a transport scheme has been formulated, approved and notified by the State Government in exercise of the power under sub section (3) of Section 100 of the Act, in respect of the notified route, which prescribe the ratio, on which the State Transport Undertakings and the private operators will be permitted to operate on the District or National Highway. In pursuance of the said scheme, out of five permits, two permits with two return trips have been granted in favour State Transport Undertakings, out of which one permit was not lifted. Since in the instant case, Punjab Roadways, Nawanshahar, a State Transport Undertaking, is willing to lift the said permit and its prayer for the same is pending before the appropriate authority, the said permit cannot be granted to the petitioner, a private operator, even on temporary basis. We have already taken this view in CWP No. 8817 of 2007, decided on 28.3.2008, titled as Kalgidhar Motors Regd., Bus Stand, Ludhiana versus The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab and others. CWP No. 19482 of 2007 -5- We do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order, passed by the Appellate Tribunal. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE April 09, 2008 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) ndj JUDGE