IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.18393 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION: MARCH 04, 2008 Jaswinder Bus Service Regd., Rayya Mandi, District Amritsar .....PETITIONER Versus The State Transport Appellate Tribuna, Punjab, Chandigarh and another ....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.A.G.Masih, Addl.A.G.,Punjab. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. M/s Jaswinder Bus Service, a registered partnership firm, has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 2.7.2007 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab to the extent of refusing to grant regular stage carriage permit to the petitioner on the route in question. In the present case, in order to provide direct bus service to the public travelling on Sultanpur to Amritsar via Saifabad, Bhandal, Dhilwan, Beas route, applications were invited for grant of one stage carriage permit for plying two return trips daily on the route in question. In response to the said notice published in the Motor Transport Gazette Weekly, Chandigarh dated 8.11.1993, 35 applicants including the petitioner preferred their claim for grant of permit on the aforesaid route. C.W.P. No.18393 of 2007 -2- During the pendency of those applications, the State Government modified the Transport Scheme dated 9.8.1990 vide notification dated 21.10.1997. According to Clause (4) of the said Scheme, 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. Undisputedly, a portion of 46 Kms. of the route in question falls on the National Highways and is part of Amritsar-Jalandhar monopoly route of Punjab Roadways. Therefore, keeping in view the said fact and as per the modified Transport Scheme, the said route could have only been granted to the State Transport Undertakings. By taking into consideration the said factor and the fact that on Amritsar-Jalandhar monopoly route there is sufficient number of bus services and the remaining portion of the route from Dhilwan to Sultanpur covers various services of main buses and mini buses, therefore, it was found that there was no necessity to grant more permits on the routes at that stage. Accordingly, the State Transport Commissioner exercising the powers of the Regional Transport Authority rejected the application of the petitioner for grant of stage carriage permit on the route in question. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as `the Appellate Tribunal'). It was argued before the Appellate Tribunal that since the applications were invited for grant of the permit on the route in question about 13 years back, therefore, the Regional Transport Authority should not have rejected the application of the petitioner while taking into consideration the subsequent fact that there is C.W.P. No.18393 of 2007 -3- sufficient increase in the number of bus services plying on the route in question. It was also argued that even if for a monopoly route, the State Transport Undertaking did not make any claim, in such situation, the Regional Transport Authority while taking into consideration the provisions of Section 104 of the Act may grant temporary permits to any person in respect of such route. The Appellate Tribunal while taking into consideration Clause (4) of the Transport Scheme dated 9.8.1990 as modified on 21.10.1997, came to the conclusion that on the monopoly route beyond 15 Kms. no permit can be granted to a private operator. However, a submission was made by the counsel for the petitioner that the learned Appellate Tribunal may grant the permit by modifying the route under Section 72(1) of the Act so as to enable the petitioner to operate on the route Sultanpur to Dhilwan and further allowing the mileage of 15 Kms. on the monopoly route i.e. Amritsar to Jalandhar. On the basis of the said submission, the Appellate Tribunal granted the stage carriage permit to the petitioner on temporary basis after modifying the route from Sultanpur-Amritsar to Sultanpur-Dhilwan, plus a distance of 15 Kms. falling on the monopoly route, i.e., Jalandhar to Amritsar from Dhilwan towards Amritsar. The petitioner has challenged the said order in the instant petition. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that if the learned Appellate Tribunal had decided to grant the permit on the route in question on temporary basis, then the petitioner should have been granted temporary permit on the entire route in question without excluding the monopoly portion. He submits that even though the regular stage carriage permit cannot be granted to the private operators in view of the aforesaid C.W.P. No.18393 of 2007 -4- Transport Scheme and the provisions of Section 103 of the Act, but keeping in view the provisions of Section 104 of the Act, the Regional Transport Authority or the Appellate Tribunal may grant the permit to a private operator on monopoly route on temporary basis, when no State Transport Undertaking claims the grant of such permit. It is well settled that the Regional Transport Authority can withhold the grant of permit on the monopoly route if no claim has been made by the State Transport Undertaking or it may grant the same temporarily to the private operators subject to the condition that such permit shall cease to be effective on the issue of a permit to the State Transport Undertaking in respect of that area or route in view of the Proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 100 of the Act. Since in the present case the permit in question was granted temporarily on the said route with a limited portion of 15 Kms. on the monopoly route, no case is made out to direct the Regional Transport Authority to grant the permit to the petitioner on temporary basis for the entire route including the monopoly route. Thus, we do not find any ground to interfere in the discretion exercised by the Appellate Tribunal while granting the stage carriage permit to the petitioner on temporary basis after modifying the route from Sultanpur-Amritsar to Sultanpur- Dhilwan, plus a distance of 15 Kms. falling on the monopoly route, i.e., Jalandhar to Amritsar from Dhilwan towards Amritsar. Dismissed. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE March 04, 2008 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) vkg JUDGE