IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 17068 of 2006 DATE OF DECISION: MARCH 12, 2008 New Patiala Bus Service (Registered), Head Office Sirhind District Fatehgarh Sahib and another ...PETITIONERS 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. Pawan Kumar Mutneja, Advocate with Mr.B.S.Giri, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Suvir Sehgal, Addl.A.G.,Punjab. Mr.Jagdish Marwaha, Advocate, for respondent No.5. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. The petitioners, who claimed themselves as transferees of the stage carriage permits from M/s Patiala Bus Sirhind Pvt.Ltd., to whom two stage carriage permits with one return trip daily on Samana- Kapurthala route via Patiala, Nandpur Kaesho, Sirhind, Ludhiana, Jalandhar (hereinafter referred to as `the route in question') were granted vide order dated 29.4.1992 (Annexure P-1), have filed the instant petition challenging the order dated 4.8.2006 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as `the Appellate Tribunal'), C.W.P. No. 17068 of 2006 -2- whereby the aforesaid order dated 29.4.1992 was set aside and the matter has been remanded to the State Transport Commissioner to decide the matter afresh expeditiously preferably within a period of three months on receipt of the copy and in the meanwhile, the grantee of the permits i.e. M/s Patiala Bus Sirhind Pvt. Ltd. was permitted to continue to ply on the aforesaid route till the fresh order is passed by the State Transport Commissioner. In the present case, after passing of the order in Civil Appeal No.1522 of 1987 arising out of SLP (Civil) No.8847 of 1986, whereby the Supreme Court ordered the cessation of all temporary stage carriage permits on all those routes where the need of the travelling public was of permanent nature, the applications were invited by the State Transport Commissioner on 15.6.1988 for grant of four regular stage carriage permits with two return trips daily on the route in question. It is pertinent to mention here that prior to the aforesaid invitation, Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala was plying its buses on the basis of two temporary stage carriage permits granted to it for a period of four months, under single file system in the year 1984. Since then, in the absence of any transport policy, the temporary stage carriage permits were continued to be issued on four monthly basis from time to time, till 27.7.1987, when the Supreme Court rendered the decision in the aforesaid SLP. In response to the notice dated 15.6.1988 published in the Motor Transport Gazette, Weekly, Chandigarh, 11 applications were received. After completion of necessary formalities, all the applications were considered by the State Transport Commissioner in its meeting held on 28.10.1988 and granted two regular stage carriage permits for plying C.W.P. No. 17068 of 2006 -3- one return trip daily on the route in question in favour of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and the remaining two regular stage carriage permits were not granted in favour of any applicants. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid order, Patiala Bus Sirhind Pvt.Ltd. and Devigarh Transport Company Regd., Patiala filed two separate appeals under Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') which came into force w.e.f. 1.7.1989. In the appeal, the aforesaid two appellants did not challenge the grant of two regular stage carriage permits to Pepsu Road Transport Corporation. However, they claimed that the remaining two regular stage carriage permits which were not granted to any one, should be granted to them. The Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 19.2.1991 remanded the matter to the State Transport Commissioner with the direction to consider the claim of the aforesaid appellants for the grant of two regular stage carriage permits which were lying vacant. One of the applicants, namely, Patiala Bus Highways Pvt.Ltd. challenged the said order by filing CWP No.17993 of 1991 in this court. Vide order dated 13.1.1992, this Court set aside the order dated 19.2.1991 passed by the Appellate Tribunal and issued the directions to the State Transport Commissioner to consider afresh the claims of all the applicants who had applied for the grant of regular stage carriage permits on the route in question instead of giving hearing only to the aforesaid two appellants, namely, Patiala Bus Sirhind Pvt.Ltd. and Devigarh Transport Company Regd., Patiala. Accordingly, the State Transport Commissioner considered the matter in the meeting held on 29.4.1992 and granted two regular stage carriage permits with one return trip daily in favour of Patiala Bus Sirhind Pvt.Ltd. (transferor C.W.P. No. 17068 of 2006 -4- of the petitioners). Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid order, three separate appeals were filed by (a) M/s Devigarh Transport Company Regd., Patiala; (b) M/s Patiala Bus Highways Pvt.Ltd.,Patiala; and (c) Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala. The Appellate Tribunal vide its order dated 4.8.2006 decided all these three appeals by a common order while setting aside the order passed by the State Transport Commissioner with a direction to him to hear the parties afresh and to pass the order in the light of the provisions of the Act after considering the case of the appellant- M/s Devigarh Transport Company Regd., Patiala regarding allotment of the permit as a candidate of the reserved category of Scheduled Castes and further to consider the case of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation as to whether the portion of the route i.e. Patiala- Samana is a monopoly route of the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and if so, whether on a monopoly route the permits can be granted to the private operator or not. Though their interests have been protected by the Appellate Tribunal while observing that during the pendency of the matter before the State Transport Commissioner after remand, they will continue to ply their buses on the aforesaid route till the final decision of the State Transport Commissioner. Against the above-said order, the petitioners, who claim themselves to be the transferees of the aforesaid two permits during the pendency of the case, have filed the instant petition. After hearing the counsel for the parties and going through the impugned order of remand, we do not find any ground to interfere in the same in exercise of the inherent powers of this court under Articles C.W.P. No. 17068 of 2006 -5- 226/227 of the Constitution of India as in our opinion by the remand order at present no prejudice is going to be caused to the petitioners if the State Transport Commissioner considers the matter afresh in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The Appellate Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the State Transport Commissioner has not properly considered the matter and has not properly considered various provisions of the Act and the notifications issued under the Act while granting two stage carriage permits on the route in question to M/s Patiala Bus Sirhind Pvt.Ltd. Undisputedly, one of the applicants, namely, M/s Devigarh Transport Company Regd., Patiala falls under the category of Scheduled Castes and as per the Appellate Tribunal, its claim has not been considered by the State Transport Commissioner in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The State Transport Commissioner also found that 30 Kms. portion of the route in question is part of the monopoly route of the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation. The said route was declared as monopoly route even prior to coming into force of the new Act. After coming into force of the new Act, under the Transport Scheme dated 9.8.1990, 30 Kms. portion of Samana-Patiala route, is part of the monopoly route of the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation. While granting the aforesaid two permits, the State Transport Commissioner has not considered this aspect of the matter. Therefore, in our opinion the Appellate Tribunal was right in remanding the matter to the State Transport Commissioner on these aspects and then to take a decision for grant of two permits on the route in question to the eligible and suitable applicants. Thus, we do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. C.W.P. No. 17068 of 2006 -6- Dismissed. However, it will be open for the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation to argue before the State Transport Commissioner that after coming into force of the Transport Scheme dated 9.8.1990, which was modified on 21.10.1997, only the State Transport Undertakings can be permitted to operate on the monopoly routes and the private operators can be permitted to operate on the monopoly routes only to the extent of 20% thereof or 15 kms. whichever is less, as on the date of consideration of the applications by the State Transport Commissioner, the new Act already came into force. Further, while remanding the matter, the Appellate Tribunal has already issued a direction to the State Transport Commissioner to take a decision in accordance with law within a period of three months and since the said decision has not been taken so far because of the pendency of this writ petition, therefore, we direct the State Transport Commissioner to take a decision in terms of the order of the Appellate Tribunal within a period of three months. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE March 12, 2008 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) vkg JUDGE