Daljit Bus Service Pvt. Ltd. vs State Transport Commissioner and Others

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.—The petitioner-Company has 13 shareholders. They include Ex-servicemen, unemployed graduates, members of Scheduled Casts and Backward Classes as also a person having a driving licence for a heavy transport vehicle. The petitioner complains that the State Transport Commissioner has rejected its application for the grant of State Carriage Permit without assigning any reason whatsoever. A copy of the order passed by respondent No. 1 on March 26, 1998, by which the permits were granted to respondent Nos. 3 and 4, has been produced as Annexure P1 with the Writ Petition. It is alleged that on account of the failure of the respondent to consider the petitioner''s merit and to assign any reason for rejecting the request, it is not even possible to effectively exercise the right of appeal. The petitioner prays that the impugned order, by which the stage Carriage permits have been granted to respondent Nos. 3 and 4, be set aside and that respondent No. 1 be directed to consider the applications afresh.

Notice of motion was issued to the respondents. A written statement has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 by Shri Harmail Singh, Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jalandhar. In this written statement besides raising an objection regarding the availability of alternative remedy of appeal, it has been averred that "all the applicants presents in the meeting were heard and due opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to put forth his claim...... Since new entrants include, Scheduled Castes, Ex-servicemen, educated unemployed .... it was not considered appropriate to discuss the merit of each individual applicant separately."

No one has put in appearance on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 despite service. They are proceeded against ex parte.

A perusal of the order shows that the State Transport Commissioner after recording the factual position, has come to the conclusion that "the applicants at Sr. Nos. 7 and 26 have better claim over the other. The applicant at Sr. No. 7 Harjinder Singh is a Matriculate, Scheduled Castes and unemployed. The applicant at Sr. No. 26 Rajpal Sharma, is B.Sc, unemployed. Both the abovesaid applicants are educated unemployed." On this basis the permits were allotted to respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner and, we think rightly, that if even one permit had been granted to it, 13 educated unemployed persons, who included members of Schedule Castes, Backward Classes; Ex-servicemen and unemployed persons, would have been gainfully employed. It would have served the cause of 13 persons while the order passed by the Authority has only helped two individuals. More than that, the respondent has assigned no reason for preferring any of the successful candidates to the petitioner or any other applicant.

It is true that when a large number of persons apply, all cannot be granted permits. It is also correct that the Authority cannot be expected to write a detailed judgment. Yet, an authority charged with a statutory function has to disclose the process of reasoning. It must indicate, howsoever briefly, the reason for preferring one applicant to the other. In the present case, we are satisfied that the authority has failed to do so.

In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy has been raised. It has been pointed out that the petitioner has an effective remedy by way of an appeal. We are, however, unable to accept this objection. Firstly, the petitioner''s claim having not been considered and no reason having been assigned by the authority for rejecting its application, it would be virtually impossible for it to effectively exercise the right of appeal. Normally, we would have been inclined to relegate the petitioner to the remedy of appeal. However, we find that the petitioner shall be unduly handicapped as it would not be in a position to indicate as to why its application has been wrongly rejected. If the Authority had assigned any reason, it would have been possible for the petitioner to invoke the remedy of appeal effectively. Secondly, a large number of appeals are pending before the Appellate Tribunal. It takes fairly long time for an appeal to be decided. If the petitioner is relegated to that remedy, a considerable period of time would elapse. In the meantime scales of equity would change. It would be pleaded that the respondents have continued for a fairly long time and thus the action may not be interfered with. After taking the factual position into consideration, we are not persuaded to accept the preliminary objection.

No other point has been raised.

In view of the above, the impugned order by which the permits were granted to respondent Nos. 3 and 4 is set aside. The case is remitted to the Authority for a fresh decision in accordance with law. The needful shall be done within three months from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order.

In the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.