IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 3814 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : 13.03.2008 Capt. Darshan Singh .... PETITIONER Versus State of Punjab and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr. J.S. Bhatia, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The petitioner has filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 30.12.2004, passed by the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh, exercising the powers of the Regional Transport Authority, Patiala (hereinafter referred to as `the STC'), whereby one stage carriage permit with one return trip daily on Mohali-Jalandhar via Nawanshahar route (hereinafter referred to as `the route in question') each was granted to the General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Roopnagar, Charan Kamal Bus Service Machhiwara and Kirpal Singh; and order dated 8.9.2006, passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh (hereinafter CWP No. 3814 of 2008 -2- referred to as `the Appellate Tribunal'), whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order has been dismissed. However, the aforesaid order dated 30.12.2004, passed by the STC, was modified, while granting one stage carriage permit with one return trip daily to each of Ambala Bus Syndicate Pvt. Ltd., Ropar and M/s Dhawan Express Registered, Patiala, respondents No.5 and 6 herein, in place of the permits granted to the Punjab Roadways, Roopnagar and Kirpal Singh. We have heard counsel for the petitioner and gone through both the impugned orders. In the present case, with a view to provide direct bus services to the traveling public on the route in question, applications for grant of three stage carriage permits for playing three return trips daily on the route in question were invited by the authority. Total 110 applications from various persons were received, which were got published in the Motor Transport Gazette Weekly Chandigarh and objections were invited. The route in question is 143 Kms. in single length, major portion of which falls on the State Highway. As such, the stage carriage permits on the route in question, as per the approved Transport Scheme dated 9.8.1990, as modified vide notification dated 21.10.1997, were required to be granted in favour of State Transport Undertakings (hereinafter referred to as `the STUs') and the private operators in the ratio of 40:60. Therefore, out of the aforesaid three permits, one permit with one return trip daily was required to be granted in favour of the STUs and the CWP No. 3814 of 2008 -3- remaining two permits with two return trips were required to be granted in favour of the private operators. For the grant of two stage carriage permits with two return trips daily, 109 private operators filed the applications. Out of them, 32 applicants were not present at the time of hearing and their applications were rejected being not pursued and devoid of any merit. Thereafter, 77 applicants remained in the filed, out of whom 24 were the existing operators and the remaining 53 were new entrants. However, with a view to inject new blood in the transport industry and to avoid the monopolistic control of private operators, the STC decided to grant both the permits to the new entrants. After considering the claim of various eligible applicants, including the petitioner, the STC granted one stage carriage permit with one return trip daily on the route in question each to the General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Roopnagar, Charan Kamal Bus Service Machhiwara and Kirpal Singh. The claim of the petitioner was also considered, but he was not found meritorious, as compared to the other successful applicants. Feeling aggrieved against the said order of the STC, 11 appeals were filed by various applicants, including the petitioner. During the pendency of the appeals, it was informed that up to 1.9.2006, when the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Patiala sent the status report, the Punjab Roadways, Roopnagar had not lifted the permit granted to it. Keeping in view this fact, the Appellate Tribunal cancelled the allotment of one stage carriage permit in favour of the STU. The second permit granted CWP No. 3814 of 2008 -4- in favour of Kirpal Singh has also been cancelled, while holding that he could not be considered to be a suitable and deserving candidate for being granted one stage carriage permit on the route in question. This observaion was made by the Appellate Tribunal, while taking into consideration the fact that Kirpal Singh stated himself to be an agriculturist by profession, having no experience in the transport line, and also the fact that he was having no intention to operate on the route in question, as during the pendency of the appeal, he had jointly applied with M/s Kangura Bus Service Regd., Samrala for transfer of the route permit. As far as permit granted in favour of Charan Kamal Bus Service Machhiwara is concerned, no illegality or infirmity was found. Thereafter, the Appellate Tribunal considered merits of the eligible candidates for the grant of the two stage carriage permits, which were cancelled. After taking into consideration the merits of all the candidates, one stage carriage permit each with one return trip daily was granted to Ambala Bus Syndicate Pvt. Ltd., Ropar and M/s Dhawan Express Registered, Patiala. It is the case of the petitioner that the Appellate Tribunal has dismissed his appeal only on the point of limitation and he was not considered on merit for the grant of permit. We do not find any substance in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. As far as petitioner is concerned, he is 64 years old and retired pensioner having annual income of Rs. 90,000/-. In para 21 of the impugned order, passed by the Appellate Tribunal, it has been observed that from the said income, the petitioner is CWP No. 3814 of 2008 -5- not in a position to purchase a new bus, as he has no other source of income. Regarding two applicants, who have been granted the permits, one permit has been granted to Ambala Bus Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. Ropar, who was already having 81 permits and 73 buses with a daily mileage of 17564 Kms. This permit was granted against the permit meant for STUs. The second permit was granted to M/s Dhawan Express Registered, Patiala, who was having three partners, two being Graduates, one holding HTV driving license and a conductor's license. Therefore, it was found most suitable and deserving candidate for the grant of one stage carriage permit in lieu of the permit granted to Kirpal Singh. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is more meritorious candidate that M/s Dhawan Express Registered, Patiala, therefore, he should have been granted one stage carriage permit, which was earlier granted to Kirpal Singh. We do not find any substance in this contention, as in our opinion, the Appellate Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that M/s Dhawan Express Registered, Patiala, is more meritorious applicant, than the other applicants. Even otherwise, in the writ jurisdiction, we cannot interfere in the impugned order only on the ground that the petitioner is more meritorious than the said respondent. We do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE March 13, 2008 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) ndj JUDGE