Civil Writ Petition No. 2277 of 1991 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 2277 of 1991 Date of decision: 12.07.2011 Lal Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus State Transport Appellate Tribunal and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr.Baldev Kapoor, Advocate, for the petitioners. None for the respondents. RANJIT SINGH J. The issue involved in three Civil Writ Petitions No. 2277 of 1991, 16802 of 1992 and 16489 of 1990 is identical. These writ petitions have been taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of through this common order. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being noticed from CWP No. 2277 of 1991. It may also need a notice that the challenge to the order in CWP Nos. 16802 of 1992 and 16489 of 1990 is to the same route permits. The petitioners have filed these writ petitions for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the order passed by respondent No. 1 i.e. the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, whereby he has interfered with the order passed by the State Transport Commissioner granting route permits to the petitioner. In view of the fresh transport policy framed by the State of Punjab, the State Transport Commissioner had granted two temporary Stage Carriage permits for plying one return trip daily on Civil Writ Petition No. 2277 of 1991 2 Sardulgarh-Pathankot via Barnala, Ludhiana route in favour of P.R.T.C. Patiala (Barnala Depot) in a Single File System. Later, respondent No. 2 in compliance of direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court invited application for grant of two Regular Stage Carriage permits for plying one return trip daily on Sardulgarh- Pathankot route vide its notice published in the Motor Transport Gazette dated 15.06.1988. It was clearly given out in notice that the permits were subjected to increase or decrease. It was also mentioned therein that 25% of the Stage Carriage Permits are reserved for the members of the Scheduled Castes community. A copy of the notice has also been attached as Annexure P-1. Many operators including the petitioners made application for grant of permits on the route so advertised. The objections were invited under Section 57 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Reference is also made to the notification whereby the grant of Stage Carriage permits were reserved for Scheduled Castes Community. The petitioners, in this writ petition, namely Lal Singh and Kaka Singh made a joint application for quota reserved for Scheduled Castes. Respondent No. 2, vide its order dated 27/28.10.1988, granted two regular stage carriage permits with half trip daily to the petitioners. Keeping in view the traffic required on the route in question, respondent No. 2 increased two permits with one return trip daily. Copy of the order is also annexed with the petition. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied from the order passed by respondent No. 2, Bhatia Bus Service, M/s Sandeep Bus Service and PRTC Patiala preferred appeals under Section 64 of the Motor Vehicle Act before respondent No. 1. It is stated that none of the applicants had opposed the Civil Writ Petition No. 2277 of 1991 3 increase of permits at any stage of the proceedings before respondent No. 2 and rather they had claimed grant of permits. It is for the first time while appealing before respondent No. 1 that they had raised the question of competency of respondent No. 2 to grant permits over and above the number for which applications were invited. It is alleged that respondent No. 1 without application of mind has allowed the appeal and cancelld the grant of permits in favour of the petitioners on the ground that respondent No. 2 was not competent to grant permit over and above the number for which applications were invited. It is this order, which the petitioners have now challenged through this writ petition. Similar is the situation in two writ petitions No. 16802 of 1992 and 16489 of 1990. The route in question is Damdama Sahib Nangal via Mour Patiala, Fatehgarh Sahib, Morinda, Ropar, Anandpur Sahib. Temporary permits were in operation, which were challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Pursuant to the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the applications for permanent routes permit were invited. Respondent No. 2, State Transport Commissioner had increased two permits with one return trip to four permits with two return trips and allotted the same to the petitioners in two writ petitions. This order passed by the State Transport Commissioner was challenged before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal by four unsuccessful operators. Respondent No. 1, State Transport Appellate Tribunal interfered with this order on the identical ground that the State Transport Commissioner had no power to increase number of routes, which were previously granted. The petitioner, thereafter, has impugned this order passed by Civil Writ Petition No. 2277 of 1991 4 respondent No. 1 through these two writ petitions. Mr. Baldev Kapoor, counsel for the petitioner, has drawn my attention to the recent judgment passed by this Court in the case of CWP No. 15458 of 1990 Bhagowal Dalam Bus Service Regd. V. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab, etc.) . Similar issue arose for consideration before this Court and this Court has held that the State Transport Commissioner would have power to increase the route and, thus, has interfered with the order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The relevant observations are as under:- “ A perusal of the order dated 26.10.1988 shows that the State Transport Commissioner before considering the grant of permits has observed that the traffic on the route had increased warranting increase in the permits and trips to be plied on this route. Accordingly, in view of the requirement of the travelling public, he increased the number of permits on the route by one with one return trip daily. It is not in dispute that such a power vests with the State Transport Commissioner. Not only this, even the advertisement itself contained a provision to this effect. Thus, the number of route permits to be granted were increased from two to three. Accordingly, one route permit each was granted to the petitioners and respondent No. 3. A bare perusal of the order of the Tribunal shows that it has overlooked the findings of the State Transport Commissioner whereby the number of route permits had been increased from two to three. It Civil Writ Petition No. 2277 of 1991 5 has proceeded on the assumption that only two route permits were to be granted. Thus, the order of the Tribunal has proceeded on a factual error. In fact, action of the State Transport Commissioner in increasing the route permits from two to three was not even challenged before the Tribunal.” This judgment has been followed by the Court in another Civil Writ Petition No. 15586 of 1990 titled M/s Jai Guru Dev Transport Co. versus State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab and others decided on 15.12.2008. No one has appeared to oppose the prayer made in the writ petition. Following the above said precedents, the present writ petitions are allowed. The directions of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal dated 01.02.1991 (Annexure P-4) in CWP No. 2277 of 1991, dated 31.10.1990 (Annexure P-2) in CWP No. 16802 of 1992 and dated 31.10.1990 (Annexure P-4) in CWP No. 16489 of 1990 modifying the route permits is set aside. In the result, the order passed by the State Transport Commissioner in the respective petitions dated 27/28.10.1988 (Annexure P-3), dated 12.11.1988 (Annexure P-1) and dated 12.11.1988 (Annexure P-3) stands restored. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. July 12, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH) rts JUDGE