United Bus Service vs The State Transport Appellate Tribunal and Others

V.K. Jhanji, J.—The State Transport Commissioner, Punjab with a view to meet the great demand of public granted two temporary stage carriage permits for plying two return trips daily on Patiala-Mahhiwar via Khanna route in favour of Punjab Roadways, Ludhiana, for a period of four months under single file system during the year 1979. Since then in the absence of any transport policy, these temporary permits continued to be issued in their favour on our monthly basis from time to time and the temporary permits issued last in their favour were valid up to 2.2.1986. The Punjab Roadways Ludhiana thereafter submitted an application for the re-issue of the said temporary permits in 1986. The system of issuing temporary permits on the routes in piece meals of four months continued till 27.7.1987 when the Supreme Court in its judgment in C.A. No. 1522 of 1987 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 8847 of 1986 ordered the cessation of all temporary permits and directed the grant of regular stage carriage-permits on all these routes where the need of the travelling public is of permanent nature.Since the existing number of bus services available on the route were found insufficient to cater to the public need, the existing strength of two permits with two return trips was raised to three permits with three return trips on the said route.

The State Transport Commissioner, Punjab, in compliance of the orders of Supreme Court, invited applications for the grant of three regular stage carriage permits for plying three return trips on the said route, through a notice which appeared in the Motor Transport Gazette Weekly, Chandigarh dated, 8.6.1988. In response to the said advertisement, the petitioner and many other filed their applications. It may be mentioned that the Punjab Government by a notification dated. 13th of September 1979 had reserved for the members of the Scheduled Castes domiciled in Punjab, 25% of the stage carriage permits to be granted in any calendar year. A similar reservation had also been made in favour of Economically Weaker Sections of the Society.

Admittedly, the petitioner firm consists of three partners all of whom are Scheduled Castes. The Punjab Government u/s 43-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), issued directions to the Regional Transport Authority in the State vide notification dated. 13.9.1979. The relevant portion of the directions is reproduced hereunder:

The minimum and maximum distance that may be covered by a permit other than a permit granted to a State Transport Undertaking shall be 175 and 250 Kilometers respectively.

More than one permit shall not be granted to the members of the same family and in the case of co-operative society or a firm not more than five permits shall be granted.

In view of the aforesaid directions, the petitioner-firm a Scheduled Castes firm, was entitled to not more than 5 permits. All applications received in response to the invitation were published u/s 57(3) of the Act, read with Rule 4.6 of the Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940, for inviting objections/representations, the ratter regarding the grant of permits was then taken up by the State Transport Commissioner in his metting held on 28/ 29.11.1988 at Patiala. The petitioner was the only Scheduled Caste applicant. After considering the applications of all applicants, two stage carriage permits with two return trips daily, were sanctioned in favour of Punjab Roadways Ludhiana which was already operating on the route on temporary basis. All other applications were rejected. One permit with one return trip was left vacant and was not issued in favour of any of the applicants. While considering the application of the petitioner from the reserved category of Scheduled Castes, the State Transport Commissioner observed in his order dated. 30.12.1988 that the. same was being rejected on the ground, that the petitioner had already been granted one permit with half return trip only, on Ludhiana Nihal Singhwala route which is 105 kilo-meters in length, on the basis of reservation. The order of the State Transport Commissioner dated. 30.12.1988 was challenged before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab. Chandigarh. As a matter of fact, throe applicants challenged the order of the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab, in appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab. Chandigarh.

The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab Chandigarh, vide order dated. 11.12.1990 dismissed the appeal of the petitioner with the following observation:

Obviously the benefit of the reservation category should be wide spread and this quota should not be exhausted by granting the repeated permits to the same applicant which rather negatives the motive behind the reservation. Therefore, this appellant has got no case for the grant of the permit in this case.

So far as two other appellants, i.e. M/s Patiala Bus Highways Private Limited, Patiala. In Appeal No. 225 of 1989, and M/s Amloh Bus Service (Regd) Gobindgarh, in Appeal No. 13 of 1990 were concerned, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal granted one permit with half trip each to both these appellants. The consideration which prevailed with the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in granting these appellants one permit with half trip each was that Patiala Bus Highways is having its head office at Patiala which is the starting point of this route and that it is already covering the entire route, having the experience and knowledge of this route and giving complaint free service on this route and as regards Amloh Bus Service, it was stated to be covering the entire route without any complaint having the experience and knowledge of this route. The petitioner, by way of this writ petition has challenged the order dated. 11.12.1990 (Annexure P-3) of State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh. The petitioner has also impleaded Patiala Bus Highways Private Limited, Patiala and Amloh Bus Service (Regd) Gobindgarh as respondents No. 3 and 4 in the writ petition.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that under the instructions of 1979 the petitioner being a Scheduled Caste firm was entitled of 5 permits, and his application could not be rejected on the ground that it had already been granted one permit on the basis of reservation for scheduled castes. He further contended that the State Transport Appellate Tribunal has already sanctioned 4 permits on different routes in favour of respondent No. 3 including the one vide the impugned order dated. 11.12.1990 (Annexure-P-3). The details of the 4 permits sanctioned to respondent No. 3 are mentioned hereunder:

__________________________________________________________________ Route Appeal No. Date of decision. __________________________________________________________________ 1. Patiala-Kapurthala 78 of 1988 4.9.1990 2. Patiala-Ludhiana 227 of 1989 26.11.1990 3. Patiala-Nangal 223 of 1989 17.1.1991 4. Patiala-Machhiwara 225 of 1989 11.12.1990 (Sanctioned vide impugned order)" ___________________________________________________________________ As far as respondent No. 4 (Amloh Bus Service) is concerned, it has already been granted a permit on Patiala-Nangal route, and now vide the impugned order dated 11.12.1990 (Annexure P-3) another permit on Patiala-Machhiwara road. The fact of granting other pennits as indicated above, has not been denied by the respondents.

After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this petition deserves to succeed.

The State Transport Appellate Tribunal while rejecting the appeal of the petitioner, held that granting of permits should be wide-spread, but in sanctioning one permit with half trip each to respondents No. 3 and 4, the Tribunal has not taken into consideration that other permits apart from the impugned one, have been sacntioned in favour of respondents Nos. 3 and 4. A different yardstick cannot be applied while considering the case of respondents No. 3 and 4 and rejecting the claim of the petitioner. The order of State Transport Commissioner as well as of State Transport Appellate Tribunal refusing to consider the claim of the petitioner on merits only on the ground that it had already been granted one permit is clearly untenable because under the instructions of 1979, the petitioner could be granted not more than S permits, where as as per admitted position the petitioner was granted only one permit with half return trip on Ludhiana-Nihalsinghwala route which is 105 Kilometers in length. Merely because the petitioner was only holding one permit it cannot be treated to be disqualification or a factor against the petitioner. The other considerations of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal while granting permits to respondents No. 3 and 4 that they were already operating on the said route, is also not sustainable in view of the fact that since 1979 till the applications in question were invited by the State Transport Commissioner, only Punjab Roadways Ludhiana, was plying two return trips daily on Patiala-Machhiwara via Khanna route. Thus to my mind, the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal cannot be sustained in law as well as on the admitted facts as explained above.

Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The order of the State Transport Commissioner dated. 30.12.1988 (Annexure P-2) and order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, dated. 11.12.1990 (Annexure P-3) granting route permits to respondents No. 3 and 4 are set aside. The quota of Scheduled Castes is still lying vacant and the petitioner being a Scheduled Caste is entitled for the sanction of permit in the reserved category and therefore, it is directed that the State Transport Commissioner shall sanction one permit within one return trip on Patiala-Machhiwara via Khanna route to the petitioner. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.