C.W.P NO. 15987 OF 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P NO. 15987 OF 2007 DECIDED ON : 28.04.2009 Sudhir Nagpal ...Petitioner versus State Transport Appellate Tribunal and others ...Respondents A N D C.W.P NO. 16366 OF 2007 Preetinder Singh ...Petitioner versus State Transport Appellate Tribunal and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT Present : Mr. A. M. Punchhi, Advocate, for the petitioner (in CWP NO. 15987 of 2007). Mr. H. S. Sawhney, Senior Advocate with Mr. B. S. Giri, Advocate, for the petitioner (in CWP No. 16366 of 2007). Mr. G. S. Attariwala, Additional AG, Punjab, for respondent No.2. Mr. M. K. Garg, Advocate, for respondent No.3. C.W.P NO. 15987 OF 2007 -2- SURYA KANT, J.(ORAL) This order shall dispose of CWP Nos.15987 and 16366 of 2007. Both the petitioners seek quashing of the orders dated 27.01.2006 and 13.09.2007 passed by the State Transport Commissioner and the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab, respectively, though in the first case i.e CWP No. 15987 of 2007, the petitioner has sought quashing of the State Transport Commissioner's order dated 27.01.2006 to a limited extent and as an alternative relief only. The controversy pertains to the grant of Regular Stage Carrier Permits on Jalandhar-Abohar via Nakodar, Shahkot, Dharamkot, Moga, Baghapurana, Kotkapura, Sarainaga, Muktsar, Malout and Balluana route. There were four permits which were to be allotted for the afore-mentioned route. The State Transport Commissioner decided to allot one permit to a new entrant, whereas the remaining three permits were decided to be granted to the existing operators. The petitioners, namely, Sudhir Nagpal and Preetinder Singh were also the applicants. The State Transport Commissioner granted one permit to Sudhir Nagpal treating him in the category of 'new entrants', whereas no permit was granted to Preetinder Singh, who also claims himself to be a new entrant. The grant of permit to Sudhir Nagpal was challenged in an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal by Preetinder Singh as well as some other applicants. C.W.P NO. 15987 OF 2007 -3- The Tribunal vide its impugned order dated 13.09.2007 set aside the permit granted by the State Transport Commissioner in favour of Sudhir Nagpal, after holding that Sudhir Nagpal is not a 'new entrant' as he is already a Director and Partner in a company/firm who are the existing operators. Sudhir Nagpal has approached this Court seeking quashing of the Tribunal's order dated 13.09.2007. Alternatively, he also seeks quashing of the State Transport Commissioner's order dated 27.01.2006 to the extent that if he was to be held to be not a 'new entrant', then the State Transport Commissioner ought to have considered his claim in the category of 'existing operators'. The other petitioner, namely, Preetinder Singh has impugned both the orders, as he is aggrieved at the non-grant of any permit to him. It may be noticed at this stage that M/S Falcon Highways Pvt. Ltd.-a private company was also one of the applicant in the category of 'existing operators'. The said Company was granted one permit by the State Transport Commissioner, which was also challenged in an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal set aside the said permit after doubting the legal existence of the Company as a Corporate body. The aforesaid company also approached this Court by way of C.W.P No. 15991 of 2007. A Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.05.2006, on the agreed stand taken by the company and the contesting private respondent, set aside the above mentioned Tribunal's order dated 13.09.2007 so C.W.P NO. 15987 OF 2007 -4- far it pertained to the claim of M/S Falcon Highways Pvt. Ltd. and remanded the case to the Tribunal for a afresh decision in accordance with law. The solitary question which arise before this Court is as to whether or not the two writ petitions in hand should be decided on merits and/or the matter be remanded to the Tribunal for a afresh decision along with the appeal filed against M/S Falcon Highways Pvt. Ltd. ? It is not in dispute that there were four permits only out of which one was ear-marked for the 'new entrants' and the other three for the 'existing operators'. It is also admitted that there were total 58 applicants and even after the decision taken by the State Transport Commissioner, 9 applicants preferred their appeals before the Tribunal. In these circumstances, when there is more than one claimant for each permit, it is neither desirable nor expedient to keep these cases pending here and still expeding the Tribunal to decide one matter un-influenced of the factum of pendency of these cases. It would, therefore, be appropriate that these matters are heard together and disposed of by the Tribunal by passing one consolidated reasoned order. For the reasons afore-stated, however, without touching the merits of the rival contentions, the order dated 13.09.2007 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, so far as it pertains to the petitioners, is set aside and both the cases are remanded to the Tribunal to decide the same afresh in C.W.P NO. 15987 OF 2007 -5- accordance with law. Suffice it the parties before this Court shall be at liberty to raise all the contentions available before the Tribunal, who shall decide these matters along with the appeal filed by M/S Falcon Highways Pvt. Ltd., as early as possible and preferably within a period of four months. Till the appeals are decided by the Tribunal, the present arrangement on the subject route shall continue to operate. Meanwhile, the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab shall also consider the desirability of increase of the permits, if so permissible in terms of the prescribed parameters/policy and if it is found that the existing permits are inadequate, necessary information to this effect shall also be brought before the Tribunal within a period of two months so that all the appeals can be decided taking into consideration the present requirements. Disposed of. Let a copy of this order be given dasti on payment of usual charges. APRIL 28, 2009 (SURYA KANT) shalini JUDGE