Patiala Bus Service, Pvt. Ltd. vs The Regional Tarnsport Authority, Patiala and Others

Tek Chand, J.—This is a petition of writ by the Patiala Bus Service Private Limited, against the Regional Transport Authority, Patiala and the Mansahia Transport Company, Mansa, District Bhatinda, praying for the quashing of the impugned order passed by the Regional Transport Authority, respondent No. 1, on June 23, 1967, vide Annexure A. The facts and circumstances of this case are as under.

The petitioner company has been playing its passenger transport vehicles on several routes. The company was permitted 2| return trips every day on the basis of two regular permits between Bhatinda and Mansa. The second respondent is also a transport company operating on this route with 4 1/2 return trips against their three regular permits.

At a meeting held on June 23, 1967, respondent No. 1 increased daily return trips of respondent No. 2 from 4 1/2 to 9 on the route in question. The complaint of the petitioner is that this was done without there being any such item on the agenda. Under the rules, agenda is published ten days before the meeting for the information of all concerned so that any party interested in objecting to an item may be able to do so, when it is considered at the meeting. The item in question found no place in the regular agenda There was one last item No. 53 "Consider any other item, any member might like to discuss." The petitioner says that this item was for consideration of any miscellaneous or incidental matters which could not be included under any item. The petitioner feels that by non-publication of the item as to increase of trips of the second respondent, the petitioner company has been greatly prejudiced. The item was taken up in a clandestine manner without the petitioner company coming to know about it; and under law it ought to have been published.

It was further mentioned that the decision was made under pressure on the Regional Transport Authority, of the Chief Parliamentary Secretary, Punjab, who was keen that the item should be included in the agenda. In this manner, it was alleged that an effort was made to prevail upon the Regional Transport Authority to consider the request of respondent No. 2 favorably. The relevant extract from the proceedings of the Regional Transport Authority in its meeting held on 23rd of June, 1967, is reproduced below:

Item No 53. Consider any other item, any member might like to discuss." (vii) To consider the request of M/s Mansahia Transport Company (P) Limited, Mansa for allowing increase in trips from 4 1/2 to 9 return trips on Bhatinda-Mansa route. No. 164. M/s. Mansahia Transport Company Mansa applied for increase from 4 1/2 to 9 return trips on Bhatinda-Mansa route. The Chief Parliamentary Secretary, Punjab also desired during May, 67 that the case should be included in the agenda of this meeting. Since the route is not the monopoly of the company, publication of the request for inviting objections is necessary. The Chairman has desired that the procedure should be followed and in order to avoid delay in the finalization of the case, it should be considered in this meeting today.

Shri Brijinder Singh on behalf of the "applicant company is present and has been heard. He has requested that there is great demand for providing additional trips on the route, in order to cater to the needs of the traveling public. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority pointed out that the particulars of the application have been sent for publication for inviting objections etc. Resolved that the increase in trips from 4 1/2 to 9 return trips against the permits held by M/s. Mansahia Transport Company (P) Limited, Mansa be allowed on temporary basis without creating any vested rights and put up with objections received in due course.

The contention of the petitioner is that no increase in trips can be allowed on a temporary basis. The permits held by the second respondent were regular and it was incumbent upon the Regional Transport Authority to comply with the provisions of section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act. No temporary permits could be granted and in any case procedure laid down in sections 47 and 48 of the Act was incumbent. There was reference to other provisions also, but they are not material for deciding the case.

In the return filed by the first respondent, it was stated that the second respondent held four permits on the route and was permitted to ply 4 1/2 return trips. It was then stated:

since the procedure u/s 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act was necessary, the particulars of the application were sent for publication which appeared in weekly Shamsher Hind on 29th June, 1967, for inviting objections etc. as provided in the rules.

It was also said by counsel that it was not obligatory to publish agenda of a meeting. Decision was taken by the Regional Transport Authority in the public interest for a short period and it was never intended to debar others who wanted to assert their right to additional trips. It was also stated that the procedure u/s 57 of the Act had been followed subsequently. The application of respondent No. 2 was allowed because it had been recommended by several public bodies of the locality Against the petitioner company, it was stated that it had been found plying in the past, unauthorized trips.

The record of the case was sent for and was examined. On 6th of April, 1967, on form P. St. S.A. an application for a permit in respect of a service of stage carriages was made to the Regional Transport Authority, Patiala, on behalf of respondent No. 2 requesting for increase of trips from 4J to 9 trips on Bhatinda-Mansa route against the four permits held by that company. On 7th of April, 1967, the second respondent had addressed an application to the Joint Transport Controller making a similar request On 9th of May, 1967, an application had also been addressed to the Chief Parliamentary Secretary, in charge Transport Department, Government of Punjab, requesting that the Regional Transport Authority may be asked to consider their application at a meeting to be held on 18th of May, 1967, which did not form a part of the agenda for that meeting. On the same date, an order was passed by the Chief Parliamentary Secretary, marked immediate, stating :

It has been alleged that the request for increase of the trips is lying pending in the office of the Regional Transport Authority, Patiala and that no action is being taken to put up before the meeting of the R.T.A. I will very much appreciate if the Secretary, R.T.A., Patiala will please ensure that this item is included in the agenda of the meeting to be held on the 18th of this month.

On 10th of May, 1967, the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority addressed a memo to the Chief Parliamentary Secretary stating that after following the procedure laid down u/s 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the case of the second respondent would be placed before Regional Transport Authority. The first question which calls for consideration is, whether the Regional Transport Authority acted within the confines of its jurisdiction, in passing the impugned order dated 23rd of June, 1967. On behalf of the petitioner, it is urged that there is no doubt that there was no compliance with the requirements of section 57(3) and (8). There was no such item on the agenda and no notice of it was given to the petitioner or any other operator. It cannot be denied that section 57 of the Act had not been complied with, nor rule 4.6 of the Motor Vehicles Rules relating to publication of application. It was contended that all this was done with a view to unduly favour respondent No. 2 and under the pressure of the Chief Parliamentary Secretary. It was also alleged that till now, no decision on the objections of the petitioner company has been made and respondent No. 2 is continuing to ply its vehicles on daily 9 trips basis under the impugned order.

The argument raised on behalf of the respondents is that the increase of additional daily trips should be deemed to have been done u/s 62 of the Act on the basis of temporary permits and under that provision, a Regional Transport Authority may, without following the procedure laid down in section 57, grant permits, to be effective for a limited period, not in any case to exceed four months, to authorize the use of a transport vehicle temporarily for contingencies specified therein. The attempt, on behalf of the respondents, to treat the impugned order, as a decision made u/s 62, is futile. The application for the second respondent was, as already stated, in Form P. St. S.A. which was used when seeking a permit in respect of a service of stage carriages. Rule 4.8 requires that every application for a permit in respect of transport vehicle shall be in one of the following forms. When a permit is sought in respect of a service of stage carriages as in this case, it has to be in Form P. St. S.A. and when the application is in respect of a temporary permit, it has to be in Form P. Tem. A. There is no doubt that the application of the respondent was not for a temporary permit. The Regional Transport Authority did not treat this application as one for a temporary permit either. In the impugned order itself there is no reference to section 62 of the Act, and the Regional Transport Authority had stated, that the application had been sent for publication for inviting objections. This was done in compliance with the requirements of section 57. Had this application been u/s 62, section 57 need not have been complied with. It is, therefore, clear that the respondent No. 2 as well as respondent No. 1 did not treat the application to be one u/s 62 for a temporary permit. In fact, respondent No. 2 had regular four permits on which they were allowed 4 1/2 return trips which under this application was sought to be increased to 9 trips. This fact was present to the mind of the Regional Transport Authority. In the return filed on behalf of the Regional Transport Authority, it was never claimed that its order was passed u/s 62. This point was urged only at the bar, and it is devoid of merit, as there was no application made for the grant of a temporary permit; and none could be made when the applicant had regular permits. There is no provision in the Act or in the rules empowering the Regional Transport Authority to increase trips on regular permits on a temporary basis, and without following the procedure as laid down under sections 47 and 57 of the Act. There is also no merit in the contention, that the writ petition should be deemed belated and, therefore, dismissed because the maximum period of four months u/s 62 has expired. Similar contention was raised before the Supreme Court and repelled vide Gandhara Transport Co. Ltd. Vs. The State of Punjab and Others, and The Madya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Bairagarh Bhopal, ( The Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs. The Regional Transport Authority, Raipur, . In the instant case, there is no scope for such an objection because the respondent No. 2 is still making 9 daily trips in accordance with the impugned order dated 23rd June, 1967. The maximum limit of four months is for temporary permits u/s 62. No maximum period in this case has been fixed and the respondent No. 2 is continuing to ply its vehicles under the impugned order ever since. It appears on this record that respondent No. 2 is being allowed to ply its vehicles on the route on the basis of daily trips instead of 4 1/2, without the sanction of law or procedure In the circumstances, the apprehension of the petitioner that this was a special favour which was being shown to respondent No. 2 at the instance of the Chief Parliamentary Secretary cannot be said to be without basis.

My attention was drawn to an unreported decision of Narula, J. in The Prem Bus Service (Private) Limited, Barnala v. The Regional Transport Authority Patiala C.W. 1525 of 1967 in which under the same item No. 53, the Regional Transport Authority has granted to Mansahia Transport Company (Private) Ltd. additional trips without following the procedure laid down u/s 47 of the Act. That was a case of a favour shown to the company at the recommendation of a member of the Regional Transport Authority. Narula, J. observed :

It necessarily follows that a statutory duty is cast on the Regional Transport Authority to take into consideration any representation the persons already providing passenger transport facilities by any means along or near the proposed route. The only way in which it can be made possible for such interested persons to make representations and to press them before the meeting of the authority, if any is to give them a notice of the proposed grant of temporary permits. Not only was this not done in the instant case but the proposed grant did not find place even in the agenda of the meeting in which the impugned order was ultimately passed.

He further observed :

After a careful consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion, that it is incumbent upon a Regional Transport Authority to give notice of the intended grant of a temporary permit to all those who are likely to be affected by the intended grant and who are entitled to make a representation referred to in section 47 of the Act, before sanctioning temporary permits u/s 62 of the Act.

To a similar argument which has been raised before me, Narula J. observed :

It was urged that the writ petition should be dismissed on the short ground that it had become in fructuous by merely five days having been left in the remaining life of the impugned permits. I do not think this to be a valid ground for refusing to interfere with an order which I have otherwise found to be whether illegal and almost mala fide.

The circumstances of that case are very similar to the instant case. In my view, the impugned order of respondent No. 1 dated23rd of June. 1967, deserves to be quashed and I order accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.