IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 3973 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION: APRIL 07, 2008 Apna Travels Pvt. Ltd., Amritsar .....PETITIONER Versus State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh and others ....RESPONDENTS C.W.P. No. 6247 of 2007 Guru Ram Dass Transport Company Pvt.Ltd., Amritsar .....PETITIONER Versus State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh 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 in CWP No.3973 of 2007. Mr.H.S.Sawhney,Sr. Advocate, with Mr.B.S.Giri, Advocate, for the petitioner in CWP No.6247 of 2007. Mr.N.D.S.Mann, Addl.A.G.,Punjab. Mr.Jagdish Marwaha, Advocate, for respondent-P.R.T.C. Mr.Rajinder Sharma, Advocate, for respondent-New Deep Motors. ... SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. C.W.P. No. 3973 of 2007 and another -2- This order shall dispose of two writ petitions bearing CWP No.3973 of 2007 and CWP No.6247 of 2007 which are arising from the common order dated January 9, 2007 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as `the Appellate Tribunal'). In the present case, the petitioners are challenging the order dated December 2, 1994 passed by the State Transport Commissioner, exercising the powers of the Regional Transport Authority, whereby the applications made by the petitioners suo moto in the office of Secretary, Regional Transport Authority on 8.8.1990 for the grant of regular stage carriage permits on the routes indicated in their applications, were rejected; and the order dated January 9, 2007 passed by the Appellate Tribunal, whereby the appeals filed by the petitioners against the said orders, have been dismissed. The brief facts of the case are that in the year 1990, before coming into force of the Transport Scheme dated 9.8.1990 which was modified on 21.10.1997, the petitioners moved an application for the grant of stage carriage permits on certain routes indicated in their applications. The State Transport Commissioner vide its order dated 13.6.1991 rejected those applications under sub-section (2) of Section 103 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') while observing that in view of the implementation of the new Transport Policy, the individual applications could not have been entertained till such time the traffic assessment of the routes is made and number of return trips required to be introduced on the routes are determined by the Survey Officer. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners filed appeals C.W.P. No. 3973 of 2007 and another -3- before the Appellate Tribunal, who vide its order dated 3.2.1992 accepted the same and granted the stage carriage permits to the petitioners on the routes claimed. Feeling aggrieved against the said orders, certain writ petitions were filed by the Transport Operators and this court vide judgment dated 11.2.1993 passed in CWP No.6301 of 1992 quashed the aforesaid order of the Appellate Tribunal with the direction to the State Transport Commissioner to re-consider the matter after getting the need for passenger road transport on various routes assessed as required under the Transport Scheme dated 9.8.1990 and then to consider and decide the application dated 8.8.1990 submitted by the petitioners. After the remand, the State Transport Commissioner got the survey conducted to ascertain the need for passenger road transport on the routes i.e. Amritsar-Mohali via Jalandhar, Ludhiana; Amritsar-Patiala via Jalandhar, Ludhiana; and Wagah Border-Malerkotla via Jalandhar, Ludhiana. The Consultant Route Planning, Punjab submitted its survey report to the effect that since sufficient number of bus services were already available on those routes and the need of the travelling public was being fully met with by the existing number of bus services, therefore, there was no scope for the addition of more bus services on those routes. The State Transport Commissioner while taking into consideration the said survey report, according to which, sufficient bus services were already available on the routes and there was no scope for the addition of more bus services on those routes, and also keeping in view the fact that the part of the route applied for by the petitioners falls on the monopoly route of Jalandhar-Amritsar of the Punjab Roadways- a State Transport Undertaking, came to the conclusion that the stage carriage permits C.W.P. No. 3973 of 2007 and another -4- claimed by the petitioners on the aforesaid route, could not be granted to the private operators in view of Clause (4) of the Transport Scheme dated 9.8.1990 and, thus, rejected the applications of the petitioners vide order dated December 2, 1994. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the petitioners filed appeals before the Appellate Tribunal and the same were also dismissed vide order dated January 9, 2007 while holding that after coming into force of the Transport Scheme dated 9.8.1990, the applications filed by the petitioners were to be dealt with under the Transport Scheme. Section 104 of the Act provides that where a Scheme has been published under sub-section (3) of Section 100 in respect of any notified area or notified route, the competent authority cannot grant any permit except in accordance with the provisions of the Scheme, therefore, it was held that the applications of the petitioners though filed before coming into force of the Transport Scheme dated 9.8.1990, were required to be dealt with according to the provisions of the Transport Scheme. It was held that as per Clause (4) of the Transport Scheme dated 9.8.1990 as modified vide notification dated 21.10.1997, all operations existing or future on monopoly routes shall exclusively be undertaken by the State Transport Undertakings and the private operators cannot be permitted to operate on the monopoly routes except to the extent of 20% thereof or up to the distance of 15 kms. of the said route, whichever is less. It was found that since the part of the route from Jalandhar to Amritsar having a single length of 85 Kms., is part of the monopoly route of the State Transport Undertaking, therefore, in terms of Clause (4) of the Transport Scheme dated 9.8.1990 as modified vide notification dated 21.10.1997, the C.W.P. No. 3973 of 2007 and another -5- private operators cannot be permitted to operate on the monopoly route. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not challenged the aforesaid aspect of the matter in these petitions. However, learned counsel submitted that the petitioners could have been granted the stage carriage permits while changing the line of travel of the routes applied for. Learned counsel submitted that there are two lines of travels of the portion of the route from Jalandhar to Amritsar, one is via Kartarpur, Dhilwan, Beas, Rayya and the other is via Kapurthala, Goindwal and Tarn Taran. Learned counsel submitted that the portion of the route from Jalandhar to Amritsar via Kartarpur, Dhilwan, Beas, Rayya is a monopoly route of the State Transport Undertakings, whereas the portion of the route from Jalandhar to Amritsar via Kapurthala, Goindwal and Tarn Taran, is not a monopoly route. As such, the applicants can be granted the stage carriage permits on the routes claimed by changing the line of travel, as indicated above. Learned counsel further submitted that during the pendency of the appeal, a re-survey report was placed on the record showing the route on Mohali-Amritsar via Kapurthala, Goindwal, Tarn Taran, and keeping in view the said survey report the petitioners could have been granted the stage carriage permits on the routes while changing the line of travel. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation- Shri Jagdish Marwaha submitted that the petitioners in their applications did not claim that they should be granted the stage carriage permits on the aforesaid alternative route i.e. from Mohali to Amritsar via Kapurthala, Goindwal, Tarn Taran route and now when they came to know that they could not be granted the permits on the route claimed as the portion of the route from Jalandhar to Amritsar via C.W.P. No. 3973 of 2007 and another -6- Kartarpur, Dhilwan, Beas, Rayya is falling on the monopoly route of the State Transport Undertakings, they changed their stand without there being any prayer that they should be granted the route permit of Mohali to Amritsar via Kapurthala, Goindwal, Tarn Taran route. Learned counsel while referring to the Proviso to Section 72 of the Act submitted that no such permit shall be granted in respect of any route or area not specified in the application. He submitted that when in the applications filed by the petitioners on 8.8.1990, they did not claim for the alternative route on Mohali-Amritsar via Kapurthala, Goindwal, Tarn Taran route, they cannot now be granted the said route, particularly when the survey was conducted on 14.3.2000. In that survey, the route line was given on the routes Patiala-Amritsar via Sirhind, Ludhiana, Jalandhar, Kartarpur, Beas, Rayya, and Mohali-Amritsar via Samrala, Ludhiana, Jalandhar, Kartarpur, Dhilwan, Beas, Rayya. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the Appellate Tribunal and the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. After hearing the rival contentions of the learned counsel for both the parties and going through the impugned order passed by the State Transport Commissioner as well as Appellate Tribunal, we do not find any merit in these petitions. Undisputedly, out of three routes claimed in the applications filed by the petitioners, the portion of the route from Jalandhar to Amritsar via Kartarpur, Dhilwan, Beas, Rayya, which is of 85 Kms. in length, is a monopoly route of the State Transport Undertakings and as per the Transport Scheme dated 9.8.1990 as modified on 21.10.1997, the private operators cannot be permitted to operate on the monopoly routes except C.W.P. No. 3973 of 2007 and another -7- to the extent of 20% thereof or 15 kms., whichever is less. It is also the admitted position that initially the stage carriage permits were granted to the petitioners by the Appellate Tribunal on the aforesaid routes including Jalandhar to Amritsar via Kartarpur, Dhilwan, Beas, Rayya route vide its order dated 3.2.1992. It is further the admitted position that since then the petitioners are operating on the said route as an interim measure vide order dated February 11, 1993 passed by this court in CWP No.6301 of 1992. When under the said order passed by this court, a fresh survey was conducted on all the aforesaid routes, including Jalandhar-Amritsar via Kartarpur, Dhilwan, Beas, Rayya, at no point of time anybody raised the objection about the said line of travel. Subsequently, when the claim of the petitioners was rejected for the grant of aforesaid permit on the claimed route on the ground that the portion of the route from Jalandhar to Amritsar via Kartarpur, Dhilwan, Beas, Rayya falls on the monopoly route of the State Transport Undertakings and as per the Transport Policy, no private operator can be granted the stage carriage permit on the monopoly route, the petitioners have changed their stand by submitting that they should be granted the routes claimed, including Jalandhar to Amritsar via Kapurthala, Goindwal, Tarn Taran by changing the line of travel. In our opinion, now the petitioners cannot be granted the stage carriage permits on the routes claimed by changing the line of control. Till the time of passing of the order by the State Transport Commissioner, no objection was ever raised to the survey report. Further, in the applications dated 8.8.1990 made by the petitioners, they never claimed that they should be given the claimed routes, including Jalandhar to Amritsar via Kapurthala, Goindwal, Tarn Taran route, though the petitioners were operating on C.W.P. No. 3973 of 2007 and another -8- those route, i.e., Jalandhar to Amritsar via Kartarpur, Dhilwan, Beas, Rayya route. Subsequently, during the pendency of the appeal, a letter was written by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Patiala to the Appellate Tribunal showing the lines of the route from Mohali to Amritsar via Sirhind, Ludhiana, Jalandhar, Kapurthala, Goindwal and Tarn Taran, which in the survey report dated 14.3.2000 was shown as Mohali- Amritsar via Sirhind, Ludhiana, Jalandhar, Kartarpur, Dhilwan, Beas and Rayya. The Appellate Tribunal had written a letter to clarify that position but instead of clarifying the mistake in giving the line of travel, the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority conducted the fresh survey on all the routes and sent the survey report dated 21.11.2005 to the court. Actually, the Secretary was never asked to re-survey on the routes. Now, the petitioners are only relying upon that survey report. It appears that the said fresh survey report was sent by the Secretary to the Appellate Tribunal in order to help the petitioners. Actually, initially when the survey was conducted on 14.3.2000, there was no objection to the said survey report by anybody, including the petitioners. Therefore, in our view the Appellate Tribunal has rightly considered each and every aspect of the matter and thereafter came to the conclusion that the routes claimed by the petitioners cannot be granted to them because after coming into force of the Transport Scheme dated 9.8.1990, the applications filed by the petitioners were to be dealt with under the Scheme as Section 104 of the Act which provides that where a Scheme has been published under sub-section (3) of Section 100 in respect of any notified area or notified route, the competent authority cannot grant any permit except in accordance with the provisions of the Scheme. C.W.P. No. 3973 of 2007 and another -9- In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order passed by respondent No.1- State Transport Appellate Tribunal. Hence, both the writ petitions are dismissed. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE April 07, 2008 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) vkg JUDGE