IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 13451 of 2006 DATE OF DECISION : 11.03.2008 Dhanna Singh and others .... PETITIONERS Versus The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh and others ..... RESPONDENTS C.W.P. No. 12261 of 2006 DATE OF DECISION : 11.03.2008 Apna Travels Regd., Majhi District Sangrur .... PETITIONER Versus The 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. Mohit Garg, Advocate, for the petitioners (in CWP No. 13451 of 2006) for respondents No.4 to 6 (in CWP No. 12261 of 2006) Mr. Gurminder Singh, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for respondents No.1 to 3 (in both the petitions) Mr. Nonish Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner (in CWP No. 12261 of 2006) for respondent No.4 (in CWP No. 13451 of 2006) Mr. H.S. Sawhney, Senior Advocate, with Mr. B.S. Giri, Advocate, for respondents No.5 to 8 (in CWP No. 13451 of 2006) * * * CWP No. 13451 of 2006 -2- SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral ) This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petitions No. 13451 of 2006 (Dhanna Singh and others Vs. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh and others) and 12261 of 2006 (Apna Travels Regd., Majhi District Sangrur and others Vs. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh and others). Both these petitions are arising from a common order dated 8.2.2006, passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as `the Appellate Tribunal'), whereby 7 separate appeals against the order dated 19.12.2002, passed by the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab, exercising the powers of Regional Transport Authority, Patiala (hereinafter referred to as `the RTA') have been disposed of. Three appeals, including the appeal filed by Apna Travels Regd., Majhi District Sangrur (petitioner in CWP No. 12261 of 2006) have been dismissed, whereas while allowing the remaining four appeals, the permits granted to Dhanna Singh, Smt. Rajinder Kaur and Dashmesh Transport Company Regd., Ludhiana (petitioners in CWP No. 13451 of 2006), by the RTA vide order dated 19.12.2002 have been cancelled and the matter has been remanded to the RTA for deciding the matter afresh, after considering claim of all the persons. In the present case, the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as `the PRTC'), a State Transport Undertaking, was holding three stage carriage permits for plying three return trips daily on CWP No. 13451 of 2006 -3- Patiala-Moga via Sangrur, Barnala route (hereinafter referred to as `the route in question'). These permits were surrendered by the PRTC. Thereafter, the RTA got published the notice for inviting fresh applications from the general public for the grant of these permits. In response to the said notice, many applications were received. However, no other State Transport Undertaking applied for grant of these permits. The RTA, after taking into consideration the merits of all the eligible applicants, found that major portion of the route in question falls on the State Highway and a portion of the route in question i.e. from Patiala to Bhawanigarh, falls on the monopoly route of the PRTC and as per Clause 4 of the notified and approved Transport Scheme dated 9.8.1990, which was modified vide notification dated 21.10.1997, the State Transport Undertakings have the exclusive right to operate on the monopoly routes. Keeping in view this provision of the Scheme, the RTA decided to grant permits to the private applicants on temporary basis, because no State Transport Undertaking was coming forward to claim those permits. Further, the RTA had also taken a decision that these permits should be granted only to the new entrants to avoid monopolistic control of the existing operators in the transport industry. Accordingly, the RTA by considering Dhanna Singh, Smt. Rajinder Kaur and Dashmesh Transport Company Regd., Ludhiana (petitioners in CWP No. 13451 of 2006) to be more meritorious, granted one permit with one return trip daily each temporarily in their favour for a period of five years in the public interest, subject to the condition that the CWP No. 13451 of 2006 -4- permits granted in their favour on temporary basis shall cease to be effective as soon as these are issued in favour of the STUs. The said order was challenged in appeal by the various applicants. The Appellate Tribunal, after considering the arguments of counsel for the parties, came to the conclusion that the order passed by the RTA was not a reasoned order, as no reason was recorded for rejecting the application of those applicants, who were denied the permit. Only the merits and qualification of the grantees of the permits were discussed and no reason was given for denying the permits to other applicants. The RTA has not made inter-se comparison of all the eligible applicants. While setting aside the order of the RTA on the aforesaid ground, the matter was remanded for fresh decision by the RTA by passing a fresh speaking order in the matter, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Further, till the passing of a fresh speaking order by the RTA, Dhanna Singh, Smt. Rajinder Kaur and Dashmesh Transport Company Regd., Ludhiana (petitioners in CWP No. 13451 of 2006) were allowed to continue with their operations, subject to usual conditions. After hearing counsel for the parties and going through the impugned order, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order of remand. We have perused the order passed by the STC, in which he has not made inter-se comparison of all the eligible applicants. Therefore, by keeping in view this fact, the Appellate Tribunal has rightly remanded the case to the RTA. In our view, no prejudice is being caused to the petitioners, CWP No. 13451 of 2006 -5- as the petitioners in CWP No. 13451 of 2006 have been permitted to continue with their operations till the disposal of the matter afresh by the RTA. In view of the order dated 8.8.2006, passed in CWP No. 12261 of 2006, whereby further proceedings, in consequent to the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal, were stayed, the matter is still pending before the RTA. Therefore, at this stage, we are not inclined to interfere in these writ petitions. Dismissed. However, keeping in view the fact that after remand, the matter has not been decided by the RTA, the parties will be at liberty to stake their claim before the RTA and contest their respective case by raising all the points, as have been raised in these writ petitions. The RTA is directed to finally decide the matter within a period of three months, as per the order of remand passed by the Appellate Tribunal. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE March 11, 2008 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) nk/ndj JUDGE