Ram Lal vs State of Punjab

Gokal Chand Mital, J.—The State Transport Commissioner (for short the ''STC''), invited applications for grant of Mini bus temporary stage carriage permits for 27 routes in Jalandhar district, vide notice published in the Motor Transport Gazette dated 22nd May, 1985 and an extract of which is Annexure P1. Ram Lal, who allegedly belongs to Scheduled Caste community applied for the grant of mini bus stage carriage permits for Phillaur-Jandiala and Taiwan-Phillaur routes. Vide notices Annexure P2, he was called upon to appear before the concerned authority on 5th September, 1985. There were total 17 applicants for Talwan-Phillaur route and similar notices were issued to all of them. On the date fixed, 16 applicants were present and one was absent. The STC exercising the powers of Regional Transport Authority observed as follows:-

One of the objectives of the mini bus scheme is to regularise and regulate as much as possible existing unauthorised operators. Nurmahal which is close to Taiwan has been plagued by a large number of unauthorized matadors, tempos and the like. Out of the 16 who appeared for the hearing as many as 3 unauthorised operators have applied so the choice will be restricted to these three.

A reading of the aforesaid quotation shows that the authority concerned was of the view that the objective of the mini bus scheme is to regularise and regulate the existing unauthorised operators and in view of that he restricted the decision for grants of permits amongst the three unauthorised operators and totally ignored the cases of the remaining 13 applicants including Ram Lal. Then the concerned authority proceeded to discuss the inter se merits of the three unauthorised operators and concluded that Sohan Singh, who was unauthorised operator, lives closest to the route and selected him for granting temporary permit with four return trips. Copy of the order is Annexure P3. Similar decision was taken by the authority in respect of Phillaur Jandiala route and the application of Ram Lal was not considered and the applications of un-authorised operators were only considered. That route was granted to Mohan Singh who had been un-authorisedly plying bus on that route. Ram Lal has challenged the grant of permits to Mohan Singh and Sohan Singh by way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is opposed by the State of Punjab through the Transport department, the STC and the two persons who had been granted permits.

On behalf of the Respondents, two preliminary objections were pressed. The common preliminary objection pressed at the time of argument is that the Petitioner has not availed the efficacious remedy of appeal to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab, as provided u/s 64 of the Act, 1939 (for short ''the Act''), and, therefore, there should be no interference in the writ jurisdiction. This preliminary objection was pressed even before the Motion Bench and in spite of that the writ petition was admitted for regular hearing,

Before other arguments are considered, I deem it proper to deal with the preliminary objections. The resume of facts narrated above shows that the writ Petitioner had applied for two route permits and was called for consideration. However, when the matter for consideration arose, the competent authority formed an opinion that the choice was restricted between the un-authorised operators so as to regularise and regulate their operation and totally ruled out of consideration the 13 persons, out of 16 persons, who were present before him. Therefore, it is a case where the 13 persons-applicants including the writ Petitioner were not considered on merits. Hence, it is a case where out of the 16 applicants, cases of 13 persons were ignored and such a decision in law would amount to a decision, only between the three unauthorised operators without affording opportunity of being considered as regards the other 13 persons are concerned, and this would be in violation of not only principles of natural justice but also the provision of Section 47 of the Act, which deals with the procedure to be adopted by the State Transport Authority in considering the applications for grant of such carriage permits, which applies by virtue of Section 62 of the Act, while granting the temporary permits. Such a decision would be void and wholly ineffective and the remedy of appeal would not stand in the way to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, because it would cause manifest injus-tice to the persons whose applications were not considered on merits. This matter is not res integra. See decision of P.C. Pandit, J. in Capital Bus Service Private Ltd. Vs. State Transport Authority, Delhi and Another, , who in turn relied on a decision Sridhar Raj v. Secy. Regional Transport Authority, Kolar AIR 1959 Mys 120. I am in full agreement with the views expressed in the aforesaid decisions. Hence, the first preliminary objection is overruled.

The other preliminary objection, which has been raised on behalf of the private-Respondents is that one writ petition in regard to the grant of two permits for two separate routes would not be competent and, therefore, on this score the writ petition be dismissed. For both the routes, the decision of the concerned authority is common i.e. the choice has to be restricted between the un-authorised operators and all others; have to be ignored. For challenging such a matter, there is no bar in; entertaining the matter in one writ petition. Moreover, on the peculiar facts of this case, ultimately the benefit will go to the private Respondents because if the two writ petitions had been filed the Petitioners would have incurred double costs, which would have been borne by the Respondents, as I have finally decided to burden the Respondents with costs. Hence, there is no merit in this preliminary objection either and the same is overruled.

Adverting to the merits of the case, in the written statement, the STC, who was the competent authority to consider the applications, had taken The following stand as contained in para 8 of the written statement:-

... One of the main objectives of the Mini Bus Scheme is to regularise and regulate the operation of such private vehicles being used for commercial purposes. In this spirit of the scheme, the applicants who indulged, in the recent time, in such unauthorised operation of Matador/Mini-buses, naturally deserve preference/ priority over others. As such, the choice was rightly restricted by Respondent No. 2 to only three applicants who were already in possession of vehicles, so as to regularise and regulate the operation of the so-called un-authorised Mini buses/Station Wagons/out mode vehicles held by them...

For the aforesaid plea reliance is placed on the directions issued by the Government dated 20th September, 1984, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure R2. Therefore, it is clear not only from the impugned order Annexure P3 but also from the pleadings that the competent authority totally ignored the 13 persons out of the 16 applicants, on the reasoning that there was a state policy or scheme only to regularise and regulate the un-authoriscd operators. Therefore, it is to be seen if Annexure R2 is such a scheme of the State Government and if it is, could the State Government frame such a scheme or take such a policy decision. One has necessarily to advert to Annexure R2 for this purpose, the relevant portions whereof are as follows:

Subject:-Regularisation of un-authorised and illegal plying of station wagons as Taxis by issuing permits.

''As a measure of regularising the unauthorised plying a of Station Wagons, the State Government has approved in principle scheme with the following salient features.''.............

The Government Advocate and the Competent Authority has placed reliance on the aferesaid portion of Annexure R2 for ignoring all other eligible candidates and in restricting the choice between the un-authorised operators. This is totally misreading of the scheme or the principles approved by the State Government. Order letter Annexure R2 was issued by the State Government because it was noticed that on certain routes there was greater pressure of passengers, which was not being met by the omnibuses plying on those routes because of the fact that between small routes there was a greater pressure as compared to the other part of the bigger route. For those small routes, without obtaining permits, certain omnibuses were un-authorisedly plying and, therefore, it was thought that in accordance with law those small routes on which there was difficulty, which was not being met by omnibuses, temporary route permits for mini buses should be granted so that the un-authorised plying may come to an end and the State may earn revenue on the basis of those permits. It is very clear from the salient features (i) to (v) contained in para 2 of Annexure R2 as well as paras 3 and 4 thereof. It was the competent authority, which misunderstood the policy or the scheme of the Government and restricted the consideration only to un-authorised operators. The route, which was being misused was to be regularised by the scheme by issuing temporary permits for mini buses and not to regularise the un-authorised operators. This is the misunderstanding of the competent authority, due to which for one route, out of 16 applicants 13 were ignored. In fairness the learned Government Advocate was not able to urge much because there is a set procedure for granting temporary permits which is equal to the procedure for grant of regular permits under which all the applicants have to be heard on merits and considering their inter se merits, the permits have to be issued. Here the competent authority has totally ignored the 13 applicants for one route and restricted its choice between the three applicants, who unauthorisedly operating without payment of any revenue to the State Government and were guilty of violating the law. This matter instead of going against them has been taken to be in their favour by the competent to authority that the un-authorised pliers have also to be ignored. Their cases have also to be considered like the other on merits and whosever is found suitable would be granted the permits.

The other limb of this argument is also to be decided against the State Government. In view of the clear cut provisions of Section 47 read with Section 62 of the Act, all applicants who come within the purview of the provisions of law, would be entitled to be considered and no policy can be laid by the State Government that only unauthorised operators would be considered and the applications of others would not be considered. Therefore, even if Annexure R2 was to Jay such a policy, it would be a bad policy because it would be wholly unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. As already observed in the foregoing paragraphs the policy did not mean this but has been wrongly understood by the competent authority to be so.

Certain allegations of mala fide have been raised by the Petitioner against Respondent No. 2. Since the writ petition is being allowed on other legal grounds this matter is not being decided and is left open to be agitated when it becomes necessary.

For the reasons recorded above, this petition is allowed with costs, which is assessed at Rs. 500/-to be shared equally between Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 as one unit and Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 as the other unit and the permits issued to Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 for the two routes in question are hereby quashed Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 are restained from plying their mini buses etc any further till the matter is redecided by the Regional Transport Authority. The Regional Transport Authority is directed to redecide the matter after issuing notice to the applicants of the two routes and after considering those, who appear before him within the two months from today. Since public is likely to be inconvenienced, direction is issued for deciding the matter of grant of temporary mini bus permits within two months from today. The Government Advocate would be well advised for immediately getting in touch with the Regional Transport Authority so that he can issue notice to the applicant without delay.

While considering the matter, the concerned authority shall also keep in view the provisions of Section 47(1-A) of the Act and the reservations made by the State Government in regard to the percentage of State carriage permits to be granted to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes which would equally apply to temporary mini bus permits as well.