IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 13621 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION: MARCH 25, 2008 Ravindra India Tourist Registered, Ludhiana .....PETITIONER Versus The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG --- Present: Mr. Baldev Kapoor, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. N.D.S.Mann, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. Mr.R.S.Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.4. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. The petitioner has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 23.8.1996 passed by the State Transport Commissioner, exercising the powers of the Regional Transport Authority, whereby all the four stage carriage permits on the proposed route were granted in favour of the Punjab Roadways and Pepsu Road Transport Corporation for a period of five years; and the order dated 19.1.2005 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as `the Appellate Tribunal'), whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order has been dismissed. In the present case, vide a notice published in the Motor C.W.P. No. 13621 of 2007 -2- Transport Gazette Weekly, Chandigarh dated 15.12.1992, the applications were invited for grant of four regular stage carriage permits for plying two return trips daily on Sunam-Hoshiarpur via Sangrur, Ludhiana, Phagwara route (hereinafter referred to as `the route in question'). In response thereto, many applications were received including the petitioner as well as respondents No.3 and 4. The State Transport Commissioner vide his order dated 23.8.1996 granted one regular stage carriage permit for plying 1/2 trip daily on the route in question in favour of General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Hoshiarpur and three regular stage carriage permits for plying 1-1/2 trip daily on the route in question in favour of General Manager, Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Sangrur, for a period of five years. The State Transport Commissioner granted all the four permits on the route in question to both the State Transport Undertakings while coming to the conclusion that a portion of 84 kms. of the proposed route from Sangrur to Ludhiana falls on the monopoly route, therefore, in accordance with the approved Transport Scheme dated 9.8.1990 as modified on 21.10.1997, all operations on the monopoly routes are required to be undertaken exclusively by the State Transport Undertakings. Since both the State Transport Undertakings had claimed the grant of permit on the route in question, they were granted those permits and the applications of the private operators were rejected. Against the said order, the private operators filed different appeals before the Appellate Tribunal, which were dismissed by the impugned order dated January 19, 2005, while observing as under:- “Clause 4 of the Scheme says that operation on the monopoly routes of the STUs shall be undertaken exclusively by the C.W.P. No. 13621 of 2007 -3- STUs. clause 4 was amended on 21.10.1997 vide which private operators were allowed to operate on 20% portion % of the monopoly route or 15 kms. portion thereof, whichever is lesser. The order under appeal was passed prior to 21.10.1997. Therefore, the private operators had no right to claim any mileage on the route in question. Its 84 kms. portion from Sangrur to Ludhiana is monopoly route of respondent No.3. Even under the amended clause 4, the appellants cannot operate on more than 15 kms. of the monopoly route. In the present appeals the appellants do not claim a permit on any specific 15 kms. portion of the route in question. As per the law laid down in Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala Versus State of Punjab and another, AIR 1995 Punjab and Haryana 50, even extension on the monopoly routes of the S.T.Us. cannot be granted to the private operators in respect of their existing permits in violation of clause (4) of the Scheme. In that view of the matter the appeals have got no merits.” During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the fact that 84 Kms. portion of the route in question from Sangrur to Ludhiana is part of the monopoly route of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Sangrur. In view of the said admitted fact, counsel for the petitioner could not point out any illegality in the impugned order as it is well settled that if a Scheme has been prepared and approved under Chapter VI of the Motor Vehicles Act, then the permits are to be granted in accordance with the Scheme and as per Clause (4) of the approved Scheme dated 9.8.1990 which was modified on 21.10.1997, no private operator can be permitted to operate on the monopoly route beyond a certain limit except in a situation where a part of the monopoly route is less than 20% of the monopoly route or 15 kms., C.W.P. No. 13621 of 2007 -4- whichever is less. Since a portion of 84 Kms. of the route in question from Sangrur to Ludhiana is the monopoly route of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Sangrur, therefore, the private operators were rightly not considered suitable for grant of stage carriage permits on the route in question. In the last, counsel for the petitioner argued that if 84 kms. portion of the route in question is part of the monopoly route, then by excluding the said portion, the rest of the portion of the route, which is not a part of the monopoly route, should be granted to the petitioner as per the ratio devised under the Transport Scheme/Policy. We are not inclined to accept the aforesaid contention of the counsel for the petitioner because when the applications were invited for a particular route, the Regional Transport Authority or the Appellate Tribunal cannot bifurcate the said route and grant stage carriage permit with regard to part of the particular route because in the Scheme, the length of the particular route has been defined. If the part of the route falls on the monopoly route, which constitutes more than 20% or 15 kms. of the monopoly route, in that case no private operator can be granted stage carriage permit on the said route. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE March 25, 2008 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) vkg JUDGE