CWP NO.22663 OF 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. *** CWP NO.22663 OF 2011 Date of decision: December 07, 2011. Karnail Singh ....Petitioner Versus State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab and another. ..Respondents . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR ***** Present: Shri Rajiv Kumar Sharda, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, J.(oral) The epitome of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the disposal of the instant writ petition and emanating from the record is that the petitioner moved an application for renewal of Regular Stage Carriage Mini Bus Permit No. 73/Mini/Jal on Maqsoodpur to Kartarpur via Raipur, Bholath route. Since the petitioner did not complete the essential formalities and failed to attach the requisite documents, so the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jalandhar(respondent No.2) rejected his application vide impugned order dated 7.10.2008 (Annexure P1). 2. Aggrieved by the impugned order(Annexure P1), the petitioner filed the appeal, which was dismissed as well by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (for brevity the “Appellate Tribunal”) by means of impugned order dated 1.6.2011 (Annexure P6). 3. The petitioner still did not feel satisfied and preferred the instant writ petition, challenging the impugned orders(Annexures P1 and P6), invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. CWP NO.22663 OF 2011 2 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the present writ petition. 5. What cannot possibly be disputed herein is that such permits are renewed on fulfillment of conditions, as contemplated under Section 81 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred as the “Act”). Sub-Section 4 of this Section authorizes the Regional Transport Authority to reject the application for renewal of a permit on one or such more of the following grounds:- c) The financial condition of the applicant as evidenced by insolvency, or decrees for payment of debts remaining satisfied for a period of thirty days, prior to the date of consideration of the application; d) The applicant had been punished twice or more for any of the following offences within twelve months reckoned from fifteen days prior to the date of consideration of the application committed as a result of the operation of a stage carriage service by the applicant namely;- i) Without payment of tax due on such vehicle. ii) Without payment of tax during the grace period allowed for payment of such tax and then stop the plying of such vehicle; iii)On any unauthorized route; and iv)Making unauthorized trips. 6. As the petitioner did not submit the required documents such as No Dues (Tax) Certificate, offence report, No Objection Certificate from the Financiers and Fitness Certificate of his bus, despite repeated opportunities, therefore, finding no alternative, the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority rejected the claim of the petitioner vide impugned order Annexure P1 which in substance is as under:- CWP NO.22663 OF 2011 3 “The permit holders failed to complete and submit the documents, such as No Due Certificate (Taxes) from the concerned District Transport Officer, offence report under Section 81(4) (b) No objection certificate from the financiers and fitness certificate of mini-bus. The applicants have been afforded opportunity to appear before the Authority on 22.4.2008 to produce the required documents for renewal of permit but they failed either to appear before the Authority or to submit the required documents. The permit holders have been afforded a final opportunity vide letter No. 7913-94 dated 18.9.2008 to produce the complete documents for renewal of permit and to appear before the undersigned in the meeting held on 7.10.2008 in his office room. They were also informed through a notice published in the Motor Transport Gazette, Weekly, Chandigarh. It was made clear to them that in the case he fails to produce the required documents and to appear on the said date, it will be presumed that they are not interested to get their route permit renewed and the renewal of the permit in question will be refused. The stage carriage permits, on a particular route are granted with a view to provide bus service for the convenience of the travelling public. Since the holders of the permit failed to get his permit renewed on submission of required documents in spite of giving opportunities, it goes to show that their financial condition is not sound and he is not providing bus service on the route in question since date with the result the travelling public is put to a great inconvenience. Therefore, renewal application submitted by the applicants need to be rejected under sub section (4)(a) of Section 81 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988'. 7. Not only that, the appellate authority has noticed that the permit of the petitioner was valid upto 28.02.2005 only. He did not operate the bus on the indicated route after 1.3.2005. Moreover, the petitioner filed an application for renewal of permit after a lapse of period of 1/1-2 years. Meaning thereby, the petitioner was not in a position to provide the CWP NO.22663 OF 2011 4 required bus service to the travelling people on the route in question, either on account of their financial instability or they were not interested to operate the bus on the indicated route for any other reason. Moreover, since the bus of the petitioner was passed upto 27.05.2010 only so, thereafter he cannot operate the bus on any route. 8. Therefore, to my mind, the Secretary RTA and the appellate tribunal have rightly considered the entire matter in the right perspective, recorded the valid reasons and negated the claim of the petitioner in this relevant connection. Such orders, containing the valid reasons, cannot possibly be set aside, in exercise of limited writ jurisdiction of this Court, unless the same are illegal and without jurisdiction. As, no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner, so the impugned orders(Annexures P1 and P6) deserve to be and are hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 9. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the counsel for the petitioner. 10. In the light of the aforementioned reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed as such. December 07, 2011. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) Malik Judge