CWP No.16310 of 2006 1 `IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.16310 of 2006 Date of decision:17.1.2008 Majhi Transport Coop.Society Ltd. ......Petitioner Versus The State Transport Appellate Tribunal and others .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr.P.K. Mutneja, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.G. Masih, Sr. DAG, Punjab. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. The petitioner is a transport society registered under Punjab Cooperative Societies Act and is engaged in the business of transport. The State Transport Commissioner Punjab (STC) invited applications for grant of four regular stage carriage permits for operating four return trips under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act on Jalandhar, Mohali via Phagwara, Nawanshahr route (hereinafter referred to as ‘route’ in question) while giving a Public Notice No.STC.P/91/98/14960 Dated 27.4.1998 (Annexure P-1). In response to this notice, 229 applications including of the petitioner were received. The contents of the applications were got published in the Motor Transport Gazette Weekly, Chandigarh dated 8.9.1998 for inviting objections if any. However, in response thereto, no objection was received from any quarters. The STC-respondent No.2 vide its order dated 5.6.2000 (Annexure P-2) granted two permits in favour of respondent No.4 (State Transport Undertaking) and two permits were granted to private operators while dividing the ratio between STUs and private operators. The petitioner filed an appeal challenging the order of respondent No.2 on various grounds including that Punjab Roadways-respondent No.4 had failed to lift permit within period as prescribed under Rule 128(5) of the Motor CWP No.16310 of 2006 2 Vehicles Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules') and the same was released on 16.3.2004 and therefore, the permit cannot be released by the transport authorities beyond the period of six months as provided under Section 128 of the Rules. However, this plea of the petitioner was not accepted and the State Transport Appellate Tribunal vide its order dated 17.11.2005 (Annexure P- 3) dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying therein that the order dated 5.6.2000 and 17.11.2005 passed by the State Transport Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal respectively are liable to be set aside/modified to the extent of granting permits in favour of respondent No.4 and release thereof in violation of Rule 128 of the Rules. The petitioner has further prayed for the issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to grant one permit with one return trip in favour of the petitioner's society. Upon issuance of notice of motion, respondent No.4 has put in appearance and has contested the claim of the petitioner by filing written statement stating, inter alia, that the petitioner is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present writ petition because at the time of issuance of permits for the route in question, the petitioner did not participate in the meeting so convened by respondent No.2-State Transport Commissioner on 18.9.1998 in the office of the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jalandhar and did not raise objections that the permits so granted by respondent No.2 cannot be released if the same is not lifted within the period prescribed under Rule 128 (5) of the Motor Vehicles Rules 1989. Respondent No.4 has also challenged the locus standi of the petitioner to file the present writ petition because the permits so granted in favour of respondent No.4 belong to the share of State Transport Undertakings in accordance with the Scheme dated 9.8.1990 and 21.10.1997 whereas the petitioner belongs to the other category of private bus operators. As per the schemes, the ratio for operation of buses for both the categories is prescribed so that none of them have any grievance. The permits to both the categories are granted as per the ratio of Scheme of respondent No.2. Since CWP No.16310 of 2006 3 the permit released to respondent No.4 belongs to the category of State Transport Undertaking, therefore, the petitioner who belongs to the category of private bus operators has no right to challenge the release of said permit in favour of respondent No.4. It has been further stated in the written statement of respondent No.4 that the grant of permit in favour of STU in the present case has been made strictly as per the provisions of the Scheme and does not call for any interference. Lastly, it was stated that the petitioner is a private bus operator and a large number of other private bus operators had also submitted applications for seeking permits on the said route. The petitioner had to compete with those private bus operators for seeking permits and that is why, in order to avoid competition he did not participate in the meeting deliberately and is now trying to grab the permits which have been allotted to the STUs as per its share in accordance with the scheme. Sh. P.K. Mutneja, learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contentions has strongly relied upon Rule 128 of the Motor Vehicles Rules 1989, which is reproduced hereunder : “128. Application and mode of grant of permit to State Transport Undertakings and other persons-(1) For securing a stage carriage permit in respect of a notified area or notified route in pursuance of an approved transport scheme under section 99 of the Act, State Transport Undertaking may make an application to the Regional Transport Authority concerned in the relevant form specified under rule 62 alongwith relevant documents specified under rule 63 of Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 as and when the same are invited through public notice: Provided that the State Transport Undertaking may make an application for the issue of a stage carriage permit on Inter- State or Monopoly routes at any time. Provided further that in case the notified area or notified route falls within the jurisdiction of more than one Regional CWP No.16310 of 2006 4 Transport Authority, the application shall be made to the Regional Transport Authority in whose jurisdiction major portion of the area or route lies and that Regional Transport Authority shall transmit the same to the State Transport Authority for consideration with its comments thereon. (2)(a) An application by a private operator for the grant of a stage carriage permit shall be made in the form specified under rule 62 along with relevant documents specified in rule 63 of Punjab Motor Vehicles Rule, 1989 within such time as may be indicated in the notice inviting applications. (b) The substance of application received in response to the notice referred to in clause (a) shall be published at the expense of the applicants for the information of all concerned and for inviting objection, if any, and the same shall be considered alongwith the applications on a date to be fixed and notified to all concerned by the Regional Transport Authority or State Transport Authority, as the case may be. (3)The fee payable in respect of the application for the grant of permits in terms of sub-rules (1) and (2) shall be as specified in rule 67. (4) The fees for grant of permit under this sub-rule shall be as specified in rule 68 and 69, as the case may be. (5) The applicant or allottee of stage carriage permit shall, within three months of the sanction of the permit by the Regional Transport Authority or State Transport Authority or such longer period as may be specified by the Authority but no more than six months, produce the certificate or registration of the vehicle before the Authority so that the particulars of registration of the vehicle may be entered in the permit. CWP No.16310 of 2006 5 (6) No permit shall be issued unless the registration mark of the vehicle to which it relates has, if the form of permit so requires, been entered therein in the event of any application or allottee failing to produce the certificates of registrations within the specified period, the Authority shall revoke the sanction of the permit.” Therefore, it is apparent that no classification for release of permit is made between State Transport Undertaking and Private Operators and once a period of 6 months is lapsed, permit cannot be released irrespective of fact as to whether it belongs to State Transport Undertaking or Private Operators. Therefore, action of respondents in releasing the permit is bad and is liable to be set aside.” However, Sh. P.K. Mutneja learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to raise any contention in support of his claim that the petitioner is entitled to the grant of one permit with one return trip out of the permits released to the State Transport Undertakings i.e respondent No.4. On the other hand, Sh. A.G. Masih, Sr. DAG, Punjab has vehemently contested the locus standi of the petitioner to file the writ petition challenging the grant and release of permits in favour of respondent No.4 from the share of State Transport Undertakings in accordance with the Scheme dated 9.8.1990 and 21.10.1997. Learned State counsel has argued that the petitioner who belongs to the category of private bus operator cannot challenge the release of permits in favour of respondent No.4 who has been granted permit out of State Transport Undertaking's share. It has also been argued that the permit has been granted strictly as per the provisions of the Scheme and even the petitioner has not raised any objection in the meeting dated 18.9.1998 before the State Transport Commissioner. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. CWP No.16310 of 2006 6 Admittedly, the State Government had framed the Transport Scheme on 9.8.1990 which was further modified on 21.10.1997 under Section 100 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and according to the provisions of the Scheme, mileage between the State Transport Undertakings and private operators is in the ratio of 75:25 for national highways, 50:50 for State Highways, 40:60 for District and other routes. There is no challenge to the said Scheme and admittedly in the present case, four permits were divided between both the categories of private operators and STUs in the ratio of 50:50. It is again not disputed that the permit in question was released to the Punjab Roadways-respondent No.4, who was granted two permits in the share of State Transport Undertakings. Thus, the petitioner has no right to challenge the said grant and release of the permit in favour of respondent No.4. Even otherwise, the petitioner did not file/raise any objections before the State Transport Commissioner at the time of grant/release of said permit. There is no such evidence/material on record of the case to contradict the said fact. Even otherwise, a perusal of Rule 128 (5) of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 shows that the said rule is procedural and release of permit in question to respondent No.4 cannot be said to be improper especially when these permits belong to the share of STUs and by release of the said permits, no legal right of the petitioner has been infringed. In view of the above, the writ petition is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE January 17, 2008 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) ps JUDGE