IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 2484 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION: MARCH 14, 2008 Surinder Singh and another ....PETITIONERS Versus 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.Balram Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.N.D.S.Mann, Addl.A.G.,Punjab. Mr.H.S.Sawhney, Sr.Advocate with Mr.B.S.Giri, Advocate and Mr.Rohit Kapoor, Advocate, for respondents No.3 and 4. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. The petitioners have filed the instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 8.12.2006 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab (hereinafter referred to as `the Appellate Tribunal') whereby on an appeal filed by Preet Bus Service Registered, Ferozepur and Baljinder Singh (respondents No.3 and 4 herein), the order dated 7.6.1996 passed by the State Transport Commissioner, exercising the powers of the Regional Transport Authority, granting one regular stage carriage permit with two return trips daily on Kotkapura-Ferozepur route via Faridkot-Golewala C.W.P. No. 2484 of 2007 -2- route (hereinafter referred to as `the route in question') in favour of the petitioners jointly, was set aside and the matter has been remanded to the State Transport Commissioner to re-consider the merit of all the applicants afresh. In the present case, with a view to provide comprehensive bus service to the general public on the route in question, the Regional Transport Authority invited applications for grant of two regular stage carriage permits with four return trips daily by publishing a notice in the Motor Transport Gazette Weekly, Chandigarh dated 15.12.1992. In response to the said notice, 69 applicants applied for the grant of the aforesaid permits, out of which, 18 applicants remained absent during the course of hearing of the case before the Regional Transport Authority. The part of the route from Kotkapura to Faridkot, which is a stretch of 12 kms., falls on the National Highways whereas the remaining length of 37 kms. from Faridkot to Ferizepur falls on the State Highways. Therefore, keeping in view the approved Transport Scheme dated 9.8.1990 and considering the merits of all the applicants, the Regional Transport Authority vide order dated 7.6.1996 decided to grant one regular stage carriage permit with two return trips daily in favour the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and one permit jointly in favour of the petitioners. The Regional Transport Authority granted one permit jointly to the petitioners on the ground that petitioner Surinder Singh was unemployed whereas petitioner Baldev Singh was handicapped, and both of them had shown keen interest to enter into the transport business so as to provide comfortable service to the public besides to earn their livelihood. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid order, Preet Bus C.W.P. No. 2484 of 2007 -3- Service Registered (respondent No.3) and Baljinder Singh (respondent No.4) filed two appeals before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal vide its order dated 8.12.2006 has set aside the grant of permits in favour of the petitioners jointly while coming to the conclusion that the Regional Transport Authority had granted one permit to both the petitioners without applying its mind to find out the merits of each and every applicant. It also failed to make an inter-se comparison of merits of all the applicants. It has been found that the petitioners made false representation before the Regional Transport Authority for getting the permits on the route in question in their favour. In this regard, it was held that petitioner Surinder Singh was already in the employment of Punjab Government whereas he wrongly represented that he was unemployed. It has been further found that during the pendency of the appeal, the petitioners had transferred the permit in question in favour of one Gurmail Singh son of Bachan Singh. This fact was not disputed by the petitioner before the Appellate Tribunal. Keeping in view the said fact, it was found that there was no justification to grant permit to the petitioners when they have already sold it to a third party. It has been further held that the Regional Transport Authority has failed to adopt a criteria in the matter of selecting a suitable and deserving applicant to be granted the permit. It has not been taken into consideration whether there was any existing operator or not and why the existing operator has been ignored in preference of the petitioners who are new entrants. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners could not challenge the aforesaid finding about the misrepresentation made by petitioner Surinder Singh to the effect of his C.W.P. No. 2484 of 2007 -4- employment and the transfer of one permit granted jointly in favour of the petitioners to a third party. In view of the said fact, we are of the opinion that no interference in the impugned order is required in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this court. In our opinion, if a person does not approach the court with clean hands, he is not entitled for any relief. Thus, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the Appellate Tribunal whereby the matter has been remanded to the State Transport Commissioner to re-consider the merit of all the applicants afresh. Dismissed. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE March 14, 2008 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) vkg JUDGE