IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 3121 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION: MARCH 14, 2008 M/s Banda Bahadur Highways Pvt.Ltd.,Ludhiana .....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. Rohit Kapoor, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.N.D.S.Mann, Addl.A.G.,Punjab. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 10.4.2000 (Annexure P-1) to the extent of grant of 5 regular stage carriage permits on Jalandhar-Patiala route (hereinafter referred to as `the route in question') with 4-1/2 return trips daily in favour of Punjab Roadways, Tarn Taran, Punjab Roadways, Amritsar-II, Punjab Roadways, Pathankot and Punjab Roadways, Jalandhar-I (respondents No.3 to 6 herein); and the order dated 7.8.2006 (Annexure P-2) passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal ((hereinafter referred to as `the Appellate Tribunal') whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order has C.W.P. No. 3121 of 2007 -2- been dismissed on the ground of limitation. 2. In the present case, the State Transport Commissioner in its meeting held on 17.8.1990 considered the claim of all the eligible applicants for grant of 10 regular stage carriage permits on the route in question for plying seven return trips daily in compliance with the earlier order of the Appellate Tribunal dated 3.2.1989. The State Transport Commissioner while taking into consideration the Transport Scheme dated 9.8.1990 as modified on 21.10.1997 and the share of mileage to be provided to the State Transport Undertakings, five regular stage carriage permits with 4-1/2 return trips daily were granted in favour of the Depots of Punjab Roadways only i.e. respondents No.3 to 6 and five stage carriage permits with 2-1/2 return trips daily on the route in question was granted to five private operators including the petitioner. 3. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the petitioner lifted the permit granted to it in the year 2000 itself after completing all formalities. The petitioner did not challenge the said order by filing an appeal within the prescribed period of limitation in spite of having knowledge of the said order. After the lapse of four years and ten months, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') against the aforesaid order challenging the said order on the ground that the permits granted to the Depots of the Punjab Roadways were not lifted, therefore, those unlifted permits should be granted to the petitioner. The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the said appeal on the point of limitation while observing as under:- “10. A perusal of the impugned order would go to show that the appellant applied for six permits with four return trips. C.W.P. No. 3121 of 2007 -3- Therefore, it cannot be believed that the appellant having applied for six number of permits and four return trips, would not have bothered to know about the impugned order. The explanation furnished by the appellant that its Manager had been visiting the office of the STC regularly, and every time, he was assured that as and when the order was passed, the same would be convened to it, cannot be accepted as a gospel truth because in case, the order had already been passed on 10.4.2000, it could not be replied by the officials in the office of the STC/RTA, Jalandhar that as and when the order was passed, the same will be communicated to the appellant. that being so, the explanation furnished by the appellant is nothing but a concoction, so as to cover up the delay in the filing of the appeal. An existing operator and particularly, as explained by the appellant in para No.2 of the memorandum of appeal, cannot be heard to say that it had not come to know about the passing of the impugned order for a period of four years and 10 months and particularly when the appellant applied for a major share of the permits. Therefore, the appeal is found to be barred by limitation.” 4. With regard to the contention that the petitioner should be granted unlifted permits, it has been observed that when the period of permits granted in favour of the Depots of Punjab Roadways had already expired, therefore, there was no justification for granting such permits to the petitioner in appeal which was filed at a highly belated stage, even after expiry of the period of permits. 5. After hearing the counsel for the parties and going through the contents of the writ petition as well as the written statement, we do not find any merit in the instant petition. Undisputedly, the petitioner filed the appeal on 3.2.2005 against the order dated 10.4.2000 after the lapse of about four years and ten months, whereas such an appeal could have been C.W.P. No. 3121 of 2007 -4- filed within a period of thirty days from the date of order or at least from the date of knowledge of passing of the impugned order. In the instant case, the petitioner was having the knowledge of the order dated 10.4.2000. Rather, in pursuance of the said order it had lifted the permit granted in its favour. It has not been disputed by the counsel for the petitioner that in pursuance of the said order, the permit granted to the petitioner was lifted in the same year and the petitioner started plying its buses on the said route. In view of this admitted fact, it cannot be said that the Appellate Tribunal has committed any illegality while dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner on the ground of limitation. Even otherwise, in the instant case the permits were granted by the State Transport Commissioner to various applicants in accordance with the approved Transport Scheme dated 9.8.1990 which was subsequently modified on 21.10.1997. According to the said Scheme, on National Highway the permits are to be granted in the ratio of 75:25 to the State Transport Undertakings and the private operators. Keeping in view the said policy, the permits were granted by the State Transport Commissioner in the instant case, and on those permits, private operators have no claim. 6. Counsel for the petitioner contends that in the instant case the petitioner filed the appeal on getting the information that respondents No.3 to 6 had not lifted the permits granted to them, therefore, those permits could have been granted to the petitioner. When the petitioner filed the appeal, the period of the permits had already expired. Not only that, when the period expired, no appeal was pending, therefore, in our view the Appellate Tribunal has rightly observed that there was no justification in granting those permits to the petitioner particularly when C.W.P. No. 3121 of 2007 -5- the period of the permits to be granted in favour of the State Transport Undertakings had already expired. 7.. In view of the above, there is no merit in the instant petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE March 14, 2008 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) vkg JUDGE