Patiala Bus (Sirhand) Pvt. Ltd. vs State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ludhiana and Others

Punjab Roadways, Ludhiana was holding one temporary stage carriage permit with one return trip on each of the two routes, Ludhiana-Patiala via Khanna, Nandpur Kesho. They applied for grant of regular permits on those routes. Regional Transport Authority, Patiala gave public notice can 22nd December, 1975 about it and also asked the person to put in applications who had a claim thereon or wanted to ply on those routes. A copy of the same e Annexure P-1. A reading of it shows that it was clearly mentioned that there was one permit and one return trip on each of the two routes.

In response to the notice, Patiala Bus Highways (P) Ltd, Patiala, Punjab Roadways, Ludhiana and Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala put in there applications for grant of the adverted permits. Their applications was published an 15th May, 1976 under S. 57(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939(hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') for inviting objections. Copy of the notice is Annexure P-2. Animatedly, the State Transport Commissioner considered the applications on 20th May, 1977 and by order Annexure P-3 granted one permit with one return trip on both the routes to Punjab Roadways, Ludhiana and in addition one permit with one return trip to Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala on Ludhiana-Patiala via Ahmedgarh route and one permit with one return trip to Patiala Bus Highways (P) Ltd on Ludhiana Patiala via Khanna, Nandpur Kesho. The resultant effect was that on both the routes two permits with two return trips were granted.

Here, it would be important to notice that M/s. Patiala Bus (Sirhand) Pvt. Ltd. who is the writ petitions in this Court, neither applied for grant of any of the two permits in pursuance of notice P. 1 nor raised any objection to notice P. 2. However it filed an appeal before the State Transport Appellant Tribunal, Punjab, under S. 64 of the Act against the order granting permits which was rejected by order Annexure P-4 dated 3rd October, 1978 on the ground that the same was not competent as the appellant had neither filed any application for grant of permit nor filed objection to the grant of permits. A prayer was made before the Tribunal for treating the appeal as revision under S. 64-p of the Act which prayer was also declined Feeling aggrieved, this petition under Arts 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed.

Shri N. K Sodhi appearing for the petitioner has urged the following points:--

(a that appeal was competent in view of cl (gg) added to S. 64. by the State amendment,

(ii) in case it is held that the appeal is not competent, the same should have been treated as a revision under S. 64-A of the Act.

(iii) Section 47(3) of the Act requires that before the applications for permits are obtained an order fixing or limiting the stage carriage permits has to be passed and without doing so permits could not be granted. In the alternative it is urged that in case the public notice dated 22nd December, 1975, Annexure P-1, is treated as an order fixing or limiting the stage carriages on the mentioned routes, since one permit each on the two routes was mentioned, permits in excess could not be granted.

After considering the aforesaid arguments I am of the view that all of them deserve to prevail. By the State amendment clause (gg) has been added to S. 64(1) of the Act, which is in the following terms:--

"64(1)(gg) aggrieved by an order of the State Transport Commissioner or Deputy State Transport Commissioner or any officer subordinate to them in exercise and discharge of such powers and functions with which they have been specifically authorized under S. 44-A".

It is admitted case of the parties that no appeal was competent under clauses (a) to (g) of Section 64(1) of the Act. The order granting permits is an order passed by an authority specially authorised u/s 44-A of the Act Section 44-A of the Act has also been inserted by a State amendment. Since an order of such an authority hat been made appealable by virtue of clause (gg) of Section 64(1) of the Act, the appeal was clearly competent.

Assuming for the sake of argument that appeal was not competent then by virtue of section 64A of the Act, the petitioner was entitled to the revision and the Appellate Authority should have considered the appeal as revision and should not have declined to do so. No reason has been given by it as to why the appeal could not be treated as revision.

On behalf of the respondents reliance was placed on Victory Public Hill Motor Transport Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Kartar Bus Service Ltd. and Another, and Patiala Bus (Sirhind) Private Limited, Sirhind v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal Punjab (1975) 77 PLR 224 for the proposition that neither appeal nor revision was competent. In Victory Public Hill Motor''s case (supra) section 64 of the Act was being dealt with, as it stood before the amendment was made by Act No. 56 of 1969, which came in effect on 1-4-1971. Moreover, at that time revision was competent only against the appellate order whereas u/s 64-A revision is competent only against an order in which no appeal lies Hence this decision is of no help.

As regards Patiala Bus''s ease 1975 PLR 224)(supra), there section 64(1)(f) was under consideration and neither clause (gg) nor section 64-A of the Act came up for consideration Hence, that decision is also of no assistance.

Adverting to the third point, which is, the main point on merits of the case, it is argued on behalf of the petitioner that before an order granting permits is passed, the number of stage carriage permits has to be fixed by the concerned authority as required by Section 47(3) of the Act, and it is only thereafter that permits can be granted In. this behalf reliance is placed on Abdul Mateen v.. Ram Kailash Pandey AIR 1963 SC 64 , R. Obliswami Naidu Vs. The Additional State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras and Others, , Mohd. Ibrahim, etc. Vs. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras, etc., and Gajendra Transports (P) Ltd., Tiruppur Vs. Anamallais Bus Transports (P) Ltd., Pollachi and Another, . A reading of the aforesaid decisions clearly bears out that the Regional Transport Authority had to first fix the number of stage carriage permits for the routes in question and it is only thereafter that the application for grant of stage carriage permits could be entertained It is also clear from the aforesaid decisions that the Regional Transport Authority while acing u/s 48 of the Act in regard to the grant of permits has no jurisdiction and authority to modify any order passed by it u/s 47(3) of the Act i.e. the limit fixed by it u/s 47(3) of the Act, cannot be altered at the time of grant of Permits.

Shri N. K. Sodhi, Advocate appearing for the writ petitioners has invited my, attention to para 21 of the reported judgment in Mohd. Ibrahim, etc. Vs. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras, etc., , a roading of which shows that if the Regional. Transport Authority has invited applications u/s 57(2) of the Act for grant of additional permit on the route, the invitation, of applications indicates in the facts and circumstances of the case that there was a valid determination u/s 47(3) of the Act for an additional permit on the route. There are certain observations to the contrary in the case of Gajendra Transports (P) Ltd., Tiruppur Vs. Anamallais Bus Transports (P) Ltd., Pollachi and Another, . Following the dictum of the Supreme Court in Mohd Ibrahim''s case (supra) on the facts and circumstances of this case the notice Annexure P-1 issued by the Regional Transport Authority limiting applications may be treated as an order u/s 47(3) of the Act, fixing the number of permits. A reading of Annexure P-l shows that one permit with one return trip was mentioned in the notice for Ludhiana-Patiala, via Ahmedgarh route and one permit with one return trip was mentioned for Ludhiana-Patiala via Khanna-Nandpur Kesho route Therefore, it can be held that the aforesaid number of permits were fixed by the Regional Transport Authority u/s 47(3) of the Act.

However, while granting permits vide order Annexure P3, two permits with two return trips have been given on one route and similarly two permits with two return. trips have been given on the other route. Permits have been granted in exercise of the powers and section 57 of the Act. In view of the aforesaid decisions, referred to on behalf'' of the petitioners, the Regional Transport Authority could not grant permits more than those fixed u/s 47(3) of the Act and since more permits have been granted, order Annexure P-3 cannot be allowed to stand as the same is clearly in contravention of the mandatory provisions of the Act.

It was urged on behalf of respondent No. 3 that since no interference would be called for in appeal or revision in view of Section 134(2) of the Act, unless failure of justice occurs, there should be interference in the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. The argument is clearly devoid of merit because the Regional Transport Authority has acted beyond jurisdiction and beyond the mandatory provisions of Section 47(3) of the Act. Once the Regional Transport Authority has no jurisdiction to grant more than one permit with one return trip on each of the two routes, the failure of justice is implicit. The petitioner, who is also operating on the basis of the stage carriage permits in the State of Punjab, did not object to the grant of one permit with one return trip on each of the two routes and for that reason neither applied for grant of permit nor raised objections to the applications filed by the other transports and the Regional Transport Authority was well within its jurisdiction to grant one permit with one return trip on each of the two routes to any of the appellants. The petitioner had to object to the Order Annexure P-3 because the Regional Transport Authority granted two permits with two return trips on each of the routes i.e. it granted double the number of permits. In view of the Supreme Court''s judgments, the order Annexure P-3 granting double number of permits is wholly illegal and against the mandatory provisions of the Act.

For the reasons recorded above, this petition is allowed, the order Annexure P-3 is hereby quashed and the Regional Transport Authority is directed to pass fresh orders in accordance with law keeping in view the observations made above However, there will be no Order as to costs.

Petition allowed.