CWP No.5672 of 2006 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.5672 of 2006 Date of Decision: 08-08-2008 M/s Khehra Bus Service Regd. Amritsar .....Petitioner Versus The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab and another .....Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present: Shri Rajinder Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Madhu Dayal, DAG, Punjab. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? HEMANT GUPTA, J. This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 5672 of 2006 and 6713 of 2006, as the common questions of law and facts are involved therein. However, the facts are being taken from CWP No. 5672 of 2006. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 9.12.2005 (Annexure P.3), passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as `the Tribunal'), dismissing the appeal of the petitioner. The petitioner is holding a permit having three return trips on Amritsar-Pathankot route. He sought another return trip on Amritsar-Pathankot route. The Survey Officer recommended the grant of additional trip, but the State Transport Commissioner declined the grant of increase in trip on Amritsar-Pathankot route as applied for, but CWP No.5672 of 2006 (2) directed the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jalandhar to conduct a fresh survey of the route to get determined demand and number of new permits and return trips to be granted to the said route. The State Transport Commissioner, while rejecting the claim of the petitioner for increase in the grant of additional trips, also considered the applications of other operators for grant of increase in trips. It was found that though the Survey Officers have invariably recommended the grant of increase in trips, but it is appropriate to approve the claim of all the operators collectively ad to decide these requests with a single order. It was found that though there is need to increase passengers transport services on this route, but it was considered appropriate to get the route surveyed afresh to determine the actual demand of additional services on this route in total so that fresh applications are invited to grant new permit on this route in accordance with the provisions of the notified transport scheme. All the applicants were given liberty to make applications for the grant of permits against the share of the private operators During the pendency of the appeal, the survey of the route in question was conducted and on 8.9.2003, the Regional Transport Authority invited applications for grant of 18 stage carriage permits for plying 18 return trips on the route in question. 4 out of 18 trips were granted to the Punjab Roadways, Pathankot, a State Roadways Undertaking. It was found that the Punjab Roadways has not lifted those four permits. The petitioner as well as other operators raised claim to get unlifted permits. The Tribunal found that it would be against the public interest to consider the request of the petitioner for increase in trips on the Pathankot-Amritsar route only for the reason that they have applied for grant of permit and that four permits allotted to the Punjab Roadways have not been lifted. It was found that the recommendations for increase in trips in the case of the petitioner and CWP No.5672 of 2006 (3) other operators has been made by the Survey Officer individually and not collectively and thus, individual recommendations cannot be true index for actual need for permits. On the basis of such fresh survey only 18 return trips daily, were found to exist and not 31-1/3 return trips as appeared on the basis of the recommendations of individual operators. In view of the said fact the appeal was found to be without merit. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that though the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Tribunal on 9.12.2005, but another appeal filed by operators against all 14 permits, was accepted and matter was remanded back to the Regional Transport Authority. Therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal rejecting the appeal in respect of four unlifted permits by the Punjab Roadways is also required to be decided afresh. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. The Regional Transport Authority got published notices in the issues dated 21.1.2001 and 8.9.2003 of the Motor Transport Gazette (Weekly), Chandigarh, inviting applications for 4 and 14 permits, respectively. The total applicants, who applied for these 18 permits were 448. Though the Tribunal in the aforesaid order maintained the grant of four permits to Punjab Roadways, but it also found that the grant of 9 out of the remaining 14 permits in favour of the private applicants, is vitiated as such permits would be granted only temporarily as they fall within the share of the State Transport Undertakings. The Tribunal, however, found that 14 permits granted by the Regional Transport Authority to the private-respondents therein are not by way of a speaking order and thus, such permits were cancelled and the Regional Transport Authority was directed to pass a fresh speaking order regarding the grant of 14 permits. A perusal of the order dated 1.2.2006. would show that 14 permits granted to private CWP No.5672 of 2006 (4) operators were set aside and the matter remitted to Regional Transport Authority. The earlier order dated 9.12.2005, was confined to 4 unlifted permits by the Punjab Roadways. Therefore, it transpires that the issue regarding all the 18 permits is required to be decided afresh. In view of the above, we dispose of the present writ petitions with the direction to the Regitional Transport Authority to decide the grant of all the 18 permits, i.e., 4 permits published in the issue dated 21.1.2001 and 14 in the issue dated 8.9.2003 Motor Transport Gazette (Weekly), Chandigarh, in accordance with law. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE August 08 , 2008 ds