C.W.P. No.12707 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (1) C.W.P. No.12707 of 2009 Date of decision:02.09.2009. M/s Harry Transport Co. Regd. ...Petitioner Versus State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab & another ...Respondents (2) C.W.P. No.12708 of 2009 Date of decision:02.09.2009. M/s Ghanaur Transport Co. Registered ...Petitioner Versus State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab & another ...Respondents (3) C.W.P. No.12709 of 2009 Date of decision:02.09.2009. M/s Amrik Transport Co. Regd. ...Petitioner Versus State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab & another ...Respondents (4) C.W.P. No.12710 of 2009 Date of decision:02.09.2009. Manjinder Singh ...Petitioner Versus State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab & another ...Respondents (5) C.W.P. No.12711 of 2009 Date of decision:02.09.2009. Jagjit Singh ...Petitioner Versus State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab & another ...Respondents C.W.P. No.12707 of 2009 -2- (6) C.W.P. No.12712 of 2009 Date of decision:02.09.2009. Satnam Singh ...Petitioner Versus State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab & another ...Respondents (7) C.W.P. No.12713 of 2009 Date of decision:02.09.2009. Satnam Singh ...Petitioner Versus State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab & another ...Respondents (8) C.W.P. No.12714 of 2009 Date of decision:02.09.2009. Manjinder Singh ...Petitioner Versus State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab & another ...Respondents (9) C.W.P. No.12715 of 2009 Date of decision:02.09.2009. Bhagwan Dass ...Petitioner Versus State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab & another ...Respondents (10) C.W.P. No.13023 of 2009 Date of decision:02.09.2009. H.S.Chahal Transport (Regd.) Mansa ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents (11) C.W.P. No.13136 of 2009 Date of decision:02.09.2009. H.S.Chahal Transport (Regd.) Mansa ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents C.W.P. No.12707 of 2009 -3- (12) C.W.P. No.13549 of 2009 Date of decision:02.09.2009. Harpreet Kaur ...Petitioner Versus State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab & another ...Respondents (13) C.W.P. No.13551 of 2009 Date of decision:02.09.2009. Gurdeep Singh ...Petitioner Versus State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab & another ...Respondents (14) C.W.P. No.13552 of 2009 Date of decision:02.09.2009. Satwinder Singh ...Petitioner Versus State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab & another ...Respondents (15) C.W.P. No.13554 of 2009 Date of decision:02.09.2009. Mohinderjit Kaur ...Petitioner Versus State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab & another ...Respondents (16) C.W.P. No.13564 of 2009 Date of decision:02.09.2009. Gurmeet Singh ...Petitioner Versus State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab & another ...Respondents C.W.P. No.12707 of 2009 -4- (17) C.W.P. No.13566 of 2009 Date of decision:02.09.2009. Gurdeep Singh ...Petitioner Versus State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab & another ...Respondents (18) C.W.P. No.13576 of 2009 Date of decision:02.09.2009. Mukesh Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab & another ...Respondents (19) C.W.P. No.13577 of 2009 Date of decision:02.09.2009. Darbara Singh ...Petitioner Versus State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab & another ...Respondents (20) C.W.P. No.13578 of 2009 Date of decision:02.09.2009. Golden Temple Transport Co. Regd., Patiala ...Petitioner Versus State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab & another ...Respondents (21) C.W.P. No.13579 of 2009 Date of decision:02.09.2009. Golden Temple Transport Co. Regd., Patiala ...Petitioner Versus State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab & another ...Respondents (22) C.W.P. No.13649 of 2009 Date of decision:02.09.2009. Gurcharan Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents C.W.P. No.12707 of 2009 -5- (23) C.W.P. No.13659 of 2009 Date of decision:02.09.2009. Rupinder Singh ...Petitioner Versus State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab & another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH Present: Mr. Balvir Singh Giri, Advocate, Mr. P.S.Bawa, Advocate, Mr. Rohit Kapoor, Advocate, and Mr. Gagandeep Singh Birgi, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Anil Sharma, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No.2. ***** JASBIR SINGH, J. Short affidavit of respondent No.2, filed in Court, is taken on record. This order will dispose of 23 writ petitions bearing Nos.12707, 12708, 12709, 12710, 12711, 12712, 12713, 12714, 12715, 13023, 13136, 13549, 13551, 13552, 13554, 13564, 13566, 13576, 13577, 13578, 13579, 13649 and 13659 all of the year 2009, involving similar questions of law and facts. In cases, which are fixed in the urgent list, notice of motion is issued. On asking of the Court, Shri Anil Sharma, Additional Advocate General, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondent authorities. With consent of counsel for the parties, all the cases were heard on merits. To dictate order, facts are being taken from CWP No.12707 of 2009. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to issue a writ of certiorari to quash order dated 31.10.2007 (P-1), vide which application of the petitioner, for grant of Stage Carriage Permit, to ply a C.W.P. No.12707 of 2009 -6- mini bus on a specified route, was rejected. Further prayer is to set aside an order dated 25.11.2008 (P-4), passed by respondent No.1, dismissing appeal filed by the petitioner. Record reveals that the petitioner filed an application for grant of Stage Carriage Permit, to ply a mini bus with four return trips on Patiala-Mulepur via Reethkheri, Jhinjran, Saifalpur, Sheikhpur Route. His application was considered by respondent No.2 on 31.10.2007 and it was rejected on the ground that the route in question was a formulated route, however, permit was not granted to the petitioner on account of publication of the draft Scheme known as “The Punjab Mini Bus Service Scheme, 2007”. Petitioner went in appeal. On the same analogy, his appeal was dismissed by observing as under: - “There is no dispute about the fact that the route in question, for which the mini bus permit has been sought by the appellant, is the formulated one. On such a route a mini bus permit can, of course, be granted on asking of the appellant but the competent authority had rejected the application on the ground that the Punjab Government had already published a draft scheme known as “The Punjab Mini Bus Service Scheme 2007” vide a notification No.S.O.34/C.A.59/1986/S.99/2007 dated 23.08.2007 under Section 99 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Under the said draft scheme which is in the offing, the operation of mini buses for plying as stage carriages is required to be undertaken by the private operators and STU in a fixed ratio. It has been provided under Section 99(2) of the Act that where a proposal is published under the abovesaid provision, then from the date of publication of such C.W.P. No.12707 of 2009 -7- proposal, no permit shall be granted to any person. In view of this, the competent authority, in compliance of the provisions of Section 99(2) of the Act, has rightly rejected the application. The order has been passed after affording due opportunity of hearing to the appellant. The order passed in well reasoned and well considered. No interference is warranted in the same. As such, the appeal is dismissed being without any merit.” Counsel for the petitioner states that a similar matter came up for consideration before this Court in CWP No.4646 of 2009, which was allowed on 16.07.2009 (P-5) by observing that the Scheme mentioned above had lapsed and non grant of permit was not in conformity with the provisions of Section 99 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. By opining as above, orders passed by the State Transport Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal were quashed and the State was directed not to treat the Scheme as operative and further direction was given to consider application of the petitioner, for grant of Stage Carriage Permit on the route in question, as per law, within a specified period. When notice of motion was issued, following contention of counsel for the petitioner was noticed by this Court: - “Notice of motion for September 2, 2009. Shri Jaswinder Singh, D.A.G., Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. He is directed to get instructions as to what will be the situation once the scheme framed has lapsed and also whether it is possible to reconsider application of the petitioner as per directions, issued by this Court in C.W.P. No.4646 of 2009, decided on July 16, 2009 (P-5). C.W.P. No.12707 of 2009 -8- Counsel for the petitioner is directed to supply him two copies of the writ petition during course of the day.” In response thereto, short affidavit of Shri Harmail Singh, Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Patiala has been filed. Paragraph No.3 of the affidavit reads thus: - “That the petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No.12707 of 2009 is at liberty to make representation in terms of order dated 16.07.2009 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Civil Writ Petition No.4646 of 2009 and the representation made if any shall be disposed of in accordance with law by passing a speaking order within the period as stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.” In view of stand taken by the respondent authorities in the affidavit mentioned above, this Court is of the opinion that these writ petitions are liable to be allowed in the same terms as in the case of CWP No.4646 of 2009, decided on 16.07.2009. Accordingly, these writ petitions are disposed of in the same terms as in the case of CWP No.4646 of 2009, decided on 16.07.2009. The orders under challenge are set aside and respondent No.2 is directed to consider applications of the petitioners, for grant of Stage Carriage Permit, to ply a mini bus on the routes mentioned in the applications, as per law. Needful be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. September 02, 2009. ( JASBIR SINGH ) vinod* JUDGE