Civil Writ Petition No. 1836 of 1991 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 1836 of 1991 Date of decision: 08.09.2011 Maghar Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Baldev Kapoor, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Vivek Chauhan, AAG, Punjab for the State. RANJIT SINGH J. The petitioners were joint applicants for grant of route Mansa-Talwandi via Jaurkian, Lehri which they filed in response to notice published in Transport Gazette dated 15.06.1988. The proceedings were held by State Transport Commissioner on 08.09.1988 and after considering applicants, the State Transport Commissioner viewed that there had been increase in traffic on the route on which the petitioners had applied and the arrangement then existing was not enough to cater the requirement of travelling public. Keeping the public interest in view, the State Transport Commissioner found it essential to increase the number of permits and trips on this route to cater to the increased traffic. The State Transport Commissioner, accordingly, increased number of permits by one permit with two return trips and then proceeded ahead to Civil Writ Petition No. 1836 of 1991 2 determine as to who amongst the remaining applicants would be entitled to permit. After considering the respective claims, the State Transport Commissioner allowed one permit with two return trips out of reserved quota for the Scheduled Castes to the petitioners. The claim of Darbar Bus Service was however declined on the ground that he already had a permit in his favour. The Pepsu Road Transport Corporation filed an appeal against the same before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal with a grievance that the permit was wrongly granted to the petitioners. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal cancelled the permit granted to the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners had already been granted one permit on 31.10.1988 and as such were not entitled to any permit against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. While taking this view, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal observed that the State Transport Commissioner himself had found this ground to be valid and had rejected the application of Darbar Bus Service. It is further observed that the benefit of reservation should certainly be widespread and repeated benefit to the same person against the reserved category should not be given. The petitioners, accordingly, have impugned this order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal through the present writ petition. The counsel for the petitioners would submit that the proceedings before the State Transport Commissioner were held on 08.09.1988. On that date, the petitioners had no permit and, accordingly, this fact that the petitioners had a permit was not before the State Transport Commissioner at the time of holding the proceedings though the order was passed subsequently in the Civil Writ Petition No. 1836 of 1991 3 month of November 1998. Thus, the counsel would contend that the State Transport Appellate Tribunal was not justified in observing that the petitioners had been granted permit by ignoring the same factors, which weighed with the State Transport Commissioner to deny permit to Darbar Bus Service. Even otherwise, the counsel for the petitioners submits that the reason to deny permit on the ground that the applicant is allowed another permit, would not be legally sound and in support has placed before me M/s Mohali Bus Service Regd. Jalandhar versus State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh and others AIR 1992 Punjab and Haryana 162. In this case, the claim had been rejected by the State Transport Commissioner on the sole ground that he had already been granted permit on another route. It is held that it is not a valid ground on which the claim could be rejected and in some cases it may even be an added merit of the applicant. The Court has also observed the fact that a person already holds one or more permits is not necessarily a disqualification or a factor against him. Noticing the paramount consideration in such matters, which is the interest of the travelling public, it is held that while granting permit to the reserved category the inter se merits of the candidates belonging to that category alone would have to be seen and their merits cannot be compared with those from the general category. Counsel would also point out another significant fact that Darbar Bus Service had not impugned the order passed by the State Transport Corporation and if they had done so perhaps, they could have relied upon on this ratio of law as laid down by this Court in M/s Civil Writ Petition No. 1836 of 1991 4 Mohali Bus Service (supra) in support of their claim. Counsel, thus, contends that the consideration for which the State Transport Appellate Tribunal cancelled the permit validly granted by the State Transport Commissioner, is not justified and so can not be upheld. There appears to be substance in the pleas raised by the counsel for the petitioners. The fact that the petitioners were granted permit on another route cannot be a valid ground to deny their request. Moreover, at the time of consideration of State Transport Corporation, perhaps the petitioners had no other permit and this fact has not been taken into account by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal while passing the impugned order. Thus, the impugned order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal is unsustainable. The same is set aside. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. September 08, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE