Mohinder Singh vs State Transport Appellate Tribunal and Others

H.S. Bedi, J.—Respondent No. 2, the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab, vide advertisement published in the Motor Transport Gazette Weekly dated October 1,1988 invited applications for the grant of six regular stage carriage permits for plying three return trips daily on the Mohali-Kapurthala route. In response to the advertisement, the petitioner as well as the private respondents along with a large number of other applicants submitted their applications. The State Transport Commissioner, in the meeting held no 14/15th De-cember1988 considered the matter and vide order dated December 25, 1988 granted two permits each to the petitioner and two other operators namits Majha Malwa Transport Company and Darshan Singh and Kulwant Singh of Mohali. The petitioner and the Majha Malwa Transport Company were granted permits out of the quota reserved for the economically weaker Sections. It has been averred in the petition that the State Transport Commissioner while granting the permits in favour of the petitioner was primarily influenced by the fact that the applicant was the holder of a HTV driving licence. Aggrieved by the aforementioned order of the State Transport Commissioner various appeals were taken before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), which vide order dated September 25, 1991 (Annexure P-3) allowed the appeals and cancelled the permits granted to the petitioner and allotted the same to respondents 3 to 5. Annexure P-3 has been impugned before me by way of this writ petition.

While considering the case inter-se of the petitioner with the respondents, the Tribunal found that the petitioner was a resident of Fazilka, which was a far off place and did not fall on the route and was not even one of the termini thereon and as such it was not possible for him to provide efficient service. With respect to respondent No.5, against whom only the present writ petition services as per the orders of this Court dated October 31, 1991 dismissing the petition qua the others, the Tribunal held that it was partnership firm consisting of three partners and all of them were scheduled castes besides belonging to the EWS category. It was also noted that the three partners held conductors licences, which meant that they had got experience in the operation of stage carriages and keeping in view the above aspects, respondent-5 was accordingly granted one route permit with one return trip daily out of the EWS quota.

Mr. J.S. Wasu, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has urged that as per Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), one of the matters to be taken into account on the positive side in favour of an applicant was the possession of valid driving licence. He has also urged that on page 19 of the order of the Tribunal, this aspect has been highlighted, but despite this factor, the Tribunal has in fact favored respondent No. 5, the partners whereof are holding only conductors'' licences. He has also urged that the mere fact that the petitioner was a resident of Fazilka which is about 200 miles away from the route in question, would not make any difference as admittedly respondent No. 5 was also not located at Mohali or Kapurthala or at any station on route but at Libra which is also about 50 miles from Mohali. He further urged that in any event the petitioner had since shifted to Mohali as it apparent from the rent receipts Annexures P-1 and P-l/A to P-l/D and also the ration card Annexure P-2. In reply, Mr. HS Sawhney on behalf of the respondents urged that the points taken into consideration by the Tribunal were germane to the issue and did not warrant any interference by this Court. It was also pointed out with reference to the written statement filed by respondent-5 that Harjit Singh, one of the partners thereof was in fact holding a HTV licence since 1986 which stood renewed up to 1994. It was further pointed out that from Annexures R-1 and R-2 reports dated 20/10/1991 and 21/10/1991 respectively, filed with the reply of respondent No. 5, it was evident that the petitioner Mohinder Singh was not living in Mohali and the ration card issued to him was never used and had, in fact, since been cancelled. It has also been urged by the respondents that the State Transport Commissioner, while disposing of the matter, did not even care to mention the name of respondent No. 5 as one of the applicants and there was absolutely no consideration of its case. He has urged that as per Sections 47 and 64 of the Act, the Tribunal is appeal and the State Transport Commissioner share co-extensive powers in the matter of grant of permits and the Tribunal having considered the matter for the first time interse between the contesting parties, no interference is called for this Court.

After hearing the counsel for the parties, I find no merit in this petition.

The Supreme Court while discussing the scope of the interference in the functioning of quasi judicial Tribunals and specifically in the case of the Act in Abdul Rehman and Others Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal and Others, held as under:

It is hardly necessary in this connection to reiterate the observations made by this Court in Kishanchand Narsinghdas Bhatia Vs. State Transport Appellate Authority and Others, that the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution should be reluctant to interfere with or disturb the decision of specially constituted authorities or tribunals under the Act especially when the Legislature has entrusted the task of granting or renewing the stage carriage permits to the aforesaid authorities or tribunals which are expected to be fully conversant with the procedure and practice and the relevant matters which should engage their attention under the provisions contained in the Act In dealing with applications for writs of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution in cases of the present kind, it is necessary to bear in mind that the High Court does not exercise the jurisdiction of an Appellate Court and the findings or conclusions on questions of fact could hardly be re-examined or disturbed by it under Article 226 of the Constitution....

Keeping in view the above said principle, it will be apparent that the scope for interference at the hands of this Court is extremely limited and this Court would be reluctant to interfere unless some patent illegality or irregularity has crept in or some irrelevant material considered by the authority. No such default for defective consideration has been pointed out to me by the counsel for the petitioner, which would compel me to a view contrary to the one taken by the Tribunal.

Although the petitioner is liable to be dismissed on the above score alone, I have nevertheless gone into the merits of the controversy raised by the parties. Admittedly, the petitioner is in possession of a valid driving licence, which is a point to be taken in his favour as per Section 47 of the Act, but this plus point has been off set as Harjit Singh one of the partners of respondent No. S is also holding such a licence. Moreover, an additional point made out by the Tribunal is that the partners of respondent No. 5 were admittedly scheduled castes in addition to the fact that they belonged to the EWS category, and three persons instead of one belonging to the weaker Section could be accommodated by the grant of the permit to the said respondent. This fact too in my view is very relevant as far as the grant of permits to the weaker Sections of the population is concerned. It has also been pointed out that the fact that the petitioner is a resident of Fazilka, a long way from the route in question, is a negative factor as has been held in M. Ramayya v. State of Andhra AIR 1956 AP 217, in the following words:

We are of opinion that the further reason in awarding the permit in favour of the respondent, that he is a resident of Bhadrachalam, which is one of the route in question, while the appellant is a resident of Rajahmundry, a place far away from the route in question, is neither on irrelevant nor an improper consideration.

This aspect becomes even more significant as the contesting parties are self employed small time operators having virtually no infrastructure so essential to operate effectively at a distance from the Headquarters., The attempt of the petitioner to show his residence at Mohali has obviously been futile in view of the Annexures R-1 and R-2 filed with the reply of respondent No. 5. Moreover even if the rent receipts and the ration card were said to be valid, and were to be taken into consideration, even then they would not be of any help to the petitioner as at the time when the State Transport Commissioner made his order in the year 1988, these points were not before him as even from these Annexures, it is clear that the residence was, if at all, shifted in 1989.

The arguments of the respondents that the State Transport Commissioner did not accord any consideration to respondent No. 5 and in fact there was no reference to the said respondent in its order has also not been denied by the counsel for the petitioner. In view of the fact that the powers of the Tribunal are similar to those of the State Transport Commissioner, it is thus open to the Tribunal to re-appraise the matter and give its own findings. This consideration has been done qua respondent No. 5 for the first time by the Tribunal itself and as already indicated above, I can find absolutely no fault in the reasoning adopted which could justify interference on the writ side.

For the reasons recorded above, the present writ petition being without merit is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.