State of Punjab vs The Chola Sahib Bus Service (Regd.)

R.K. Nehru, J.—State of Punjab has challenged the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh, dated February 3,1992, allowing increase from one return trip to two return trips on Amritsar-Chola Sahib route to Chola Sahib Bus Service (Regd.), Amritsar, in this Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

The facts:-

Raj Transport Co. (P) Ltd., Amritsar held one regular stage carriage permit No. 2586/SC/74 for plying one return trip daily on Amritsar-Chola Sahib route. Subsequently, the permit was transferred in the name of Chola Sahib Bus Service (Regd.), Amritsar (Respondent No.l). Raj Transport Co. (P) Ltd., Amritsar applied to the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jalandhar for the grant of increase in trips from one return trip to two return trips daily against the said permit in the year 1986. The District Transport Officer, Amritsar who conducted survey of the route recommended the increase in trips on the said route in public interest. The contents of the application published as required u/s 57(3) of the Punjab Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 read with Rule 4.6 of the Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940, through a notice in the Motor Transport Gazette Weekly, Chandigarh dated October 22, 1986. The State Transport Commissioner, Punjab vide his order dated February 8, 1991, rejected the application for increase in return trips in the light of the Scheme published in the Punjab Government Gazette (Extra.) dated August 9, 1990 vide Notification No. S.O. 41/C.A.59/88/S.100/99. Respondent No. 1 - Chola Sahib Bus Service (Regd.), Amritsar challenged the order of the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab, in appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh (for short, the Tribunal) purporting to be u/s 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Tribunal by its order dated February 3,1992, allowed the appeal and granted increase in trips from one return trip to two return trips, It further held that the scheme dated August 9,1990 does not inhibit the increase in return trips of the existing operator and the provisions of Section 103(2)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, under which the application had been rejected, were not applicable in the instant case.

Somewhat identical orders were passed by the Tribunal in other appeals filed by the private operators. The orders of the Tribunal were challenged in this Court by the State of Punjab through various writ petitions. The matter was finally disposed of by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 9254 of 1992 (State of Punjab v. Guru Ram Dass Transport Company) , decided on July 31,1992, and it was held thus:-

"In order to implement the scheme after the same is published, the Regional Transport Authority could refuse to grant permit on such applications which were pending in view of Section 103(2)(a) and Section 104 of the Act, as reproduced above. If such an order is passed with respect to the applications pending, u/s 103(3) of the Act, no appeal could be entertained. The entire approach of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal with respect to entertain an appeal against an order which was passed u/s 103(2) of the Act is erroneous in law. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and then grant stage carriage permits with respect to National Highway routes or State Highway routes for which the scheme had already been finalised and published u/s 100 of the. Act."

Learned counsel for the parties stated at the Bar that the judgment rendered in C.W.P. No. 9254 of 1992 was unsuccessfully challenged through SLP before the apex Court. The decision rendered in Guru Ram Dass Transport Company''s case (supra) was reiterated by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 11150 of 1992 (State of Punjab v. Dhillon Transport Co.) decided on September 30,1992, holding thus:-

"In view of the position of law discussed above, the orders of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, entertaining the appeals against the orders of the State Transport Commissioner, exercising powers of Regional Transport Authority, declining to grant permits or to grant variations in the terms of the existing permits in respect of increase in the number of trips or extension in the route area, are without jurisdiction. The State Appellate Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain such appeals in view of the provisions of Section 103(3) of the Act and the State Transport Appellate Tribunal had no jurisdiction to allow the applications filed by the private operators for variation in the terms and conditions of the existing permits in such circumstances. The writ petitions filed by the private operators for a direction to the Regional Transport Authority/State Transport Commissioner to implement such orders of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in such cases, deserve to be dismissed."

In the light of these authoritative pronouncements rendered in Guru Ram Dass Transport Co. case (supra) and Dhillon Transport Cos. case (supra), the order of the Tribunal dated February 3, 1992, cannot be sustained.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 placed reliance on a decision of a learned single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No. 6301 of 1992 (Kartar Bus service Ltd. v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal) , decided on February 11, 1993, to contend that the order passed by the Tribunal is referrable to the provisions of Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the order should be deemed to have been passed by it in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The learned single Judge while dealing with this aspect of the matter and after referring to the Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in CWP No. 9254 of 1992 (State of Punjab v. Guru Ram Dass Transport Company) , decided on July 31,1992, held thus:-

" In view of the pronouncement by the Division Bench in the case of Guru Ram Dass (supra) it has to be held that the appeal filed by respondent No. 3 against the order of the State Transport Commissioner was not competent. This, however, does not resolve the controversy finally. Mr. Sawhney contended that even if the appeal filed by respondent No. 3 was not competent, it could be treated as revision u/s 90 of the Act and the order passed by the Tribunal was thus legal and valid. Section 90 provides as under:-

''90. Revision. - The State Transport Appellate Tribunal may, on an application made to it, call for the record of any case in which an order has been made by a State Transport Authority or Regional Transport Authority against which no appeal lies, and if it appears to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal that the order made by the State Transport Authority or Regional Transport Authority is improper or illegal, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal may pass such order in relation to the case as it deems fit and every such order shall be final:

Provided that the State Transport Appellate Tribunal shall not entertain any application from a person aggrieved by an order of a State Transport Authority or Regional Transport Authority, unless the application is made within thirty days from the date of the order:

Provided further that the State Transport Appellate Tribunal may entertain the application after the expiry of the said period of thirty days, if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by good and sufficient cause from making the application in time:

Provided also that the State Transport Appellate Tribunal shall not pass an order under this section prejudicial to any person without giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard.''

A perusal of the above provision shows that in a case where an order has been passed by the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority ''against which no appeal lies'', an application can be made to the Tribunal. Further, if it appears to the Tribunal that the order passed by the authority ''is improper or illegal'', it can pass '' such order in relation to the case as it deems fit... The provision confers a wide power on the Tribunal. It authorises the Tribunal to examine the propriety or the legality of an order. If it finds that the order passed by the Authority is improper or illegal, it can pass such order as it deems fit. This power, even though apparently revisional, is wide in its content. It authorises the Tribunal to pass any order which it considers fit in the circumstances of the case. In this view of the matter, the contention raised by Mr. Sawhney that the impugned order is clearly referable to the provision of Section 90 is hot without merit."

With respect, the learned single Judge did not correctly understand the ratio of the judgment in Guru Ram Dass Transport. Company''s cast (supra). In that case, after the enforcement of the scheme dated August 9, 1990 which was published in the Punjab Govt. Gazette (Extra.) vide Notification No. S.O. 41/CA.59/88/S.100/99, dated August 9, 1990, as in the instant case, if the Regional Transport Authority had declined to grant a stage carriage permit in respect of a notified area or notified route, the Tribunal could not entertain any appeal u/s 103(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against that order. The private operators, under Chapter VI, could not be granted stage carriage permit on the application already pending after the enforcement of the scheme. It is impermissible to say that what cannot be allowed in exercise of appellate jurisdiction can be granted in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The crux of the decision in Guru Ram Dass Transport Company''s case (supra) is that after the publication of the scheme under the provisions of Section 99 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,the applicant could not be granted increase in return trips on the application filed before the publication of the scheme. In Ram Krishna Verma and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others, , the apex Court held thus:-

"By operation of Section 98 of the Act, Chapter VI overrides Chapter V and other law and shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in Chapter, V or any other law for the time being in force or any instrument having effect by virtue of such law. The result is that even under the Act the existing scheme under the repealed Act or made under Chapter VI of the Act shall have overriding effect on Chapter V notwithstanding any right given to private operators in Chapter V of the Act. No corridow protection to private operators is permissible."

The Authorities will refrain from granting permits contrary to the scheme. The State Transport Commissioner, exercising the powers of Regional Transport Authority, disallowed the application of respondent No. 1 for allowing increase in return trips. The order of the Tribunal allowing the increase in return trips is patently illegal in the light of the observations made supra. The observations of the learned single Judge in Kartar Bus Service Ltd. case (supra) and the Dhillon Transport Company''s case (supra) as well as the apex Court''s decision in Ram Krishna Verma''s case (Supra). The further observations of the learned single Judge remanding the case to the State Transport Commissioner for deciding the application of the private operator cannot be sustained since these are inconsistent with the rule of law laid down in Ram Krishna Verma''s case (supra). The judgment of the learned single Judge rendered in C.W.P. No. 6301 of 1992 (Kartar Bus Service Ltd. v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal) decided on February 11, 1993, is accordingly set aside.

For the reasons stated above, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed with costs quantified at Rs. 5000/- to be paid by respondent No. 1 and the impugned order dated February 3, 1992 passed by the Tribunal is quashed.