Pepsu Road Transport Corporation vs New Samundri Transport Company (Pvt.) Ltd. and Others

A.L. Bahri, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the Pepsu Roadways Transport Corporation (for short called ''the PRTC'') for quashing order dated May 16, 1992, passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab, and order dated March 13, 1991, passed by the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab. Since facts are mostly admitted, only brief narration is considered necessary. Respondent M/s. New Samundri Transport Company (Pvt.) Ltd., Ferozepur, was operating passenger transport service on Moga-Kotkapura route on the basis of three stage carriage permits with five return trips daily prior to 1969. The validity of such permits expired on June 13, 1969. Since this Company remained in huge arrears of tax and did not possess adequate number of buses, the permits aforesaid were not renewed during the period 1969 to 1986. When the financial position of the aforesaid Company improved and after clearing all the arrears, an application was moved for restoration of such permits in 1986. As per allegations of the petitioner during this period the State Undertakings, nice the petitioner, were allowed to operate on the aforesaid route. The petitioner-Corporation was running more than 20 return trips daily on this route. The State Transport Commissioner vide order dated May 16, 1986 restored three temporary stage carriage permits with five return trips daily on Moga-Kotkapura route in favour of the respondent-Company. Such permits were valid upto September 1986 and were extended on temporary basis till January 23, 1987. The respondent-Company then moved an application for the grant of such permit on regular basis. The application was advertised on November 1, 1990. Annexure P-3 is the advertisement. In this advertisement it was mentioned that objections were invited for the grant of three stage carriage permits with four return trips on Moga-Kotkapura route. The petitioner-Corporation filed objections in response to the advertisement. Final order was passed by the State Transport Commissioner on March 15, 1991 but actually issued on July 9, 1991 - Annexure P.1. Objections were rejected. Three regular stage carriage permits with four return trips daily on the aforesaid route were ordered to be issued in favour of the New Samundri Transport Company (the respondent) for a period of 3 years. An appeal was filed against the aforesaid order by the New Samundri Transport Company which was decided by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal on May 26, 1992 - order Annexure P.2. While allowing the appeal the order of Transport Commissioner was modified, the trips were increased from four to five with respect to three regular stage carriage permits granted. These orders are under challenge in this writ petition as stated above.

One of the grounds taken up in the writ petition against the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal is that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to increase the number of trips than were advertised. It is on that basis that notice of motion was issued in the writ petition. The respondent M/s. New Samundri Transport Company has contested the writ petition by filing written statement. As already observed above, as far as factual position is concerned, the same is not being disputed. During arguments it was asserted that the present case should be governed by the old Motor Vehicles Act as it was a case of restoration of the permits which were not earlier utilised by the respondent-Company for some period. This contention as such cannot be accepted. After enforcement of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the process for the allotment of the permits on regular basis was started. Hence it is the new Act which would be applicable. The application of the respondent-Company for restoration of three regular permits with five return trips was allowed and on that basis temporary permits continued to be issued in their favour. It was subsequently that when the Supreme Court in Jagjit Bus Service (Regd.), Amritsar through its Managing Partner Shri Jagjit Singh Vs. State Transport Commissioner, Punjab and Another, , held that the practice of issuing temporary permits where necessity of issuing regular permits existed was not proper, that the respondent-Company applied for getting regular permits. It was the State Transport Commissioner who only invited objections with respect of three stage carriage permits with four return trips as mentioned in Annexure P-3 but that does not mean that the application of the respondent-Company automatically stood modified for the grant of such permit with four return, trips. What was before the State Transport Commissioner for consideration was the application of the respondent-Company. Of course the authorities under the Act could not grant more permits for more return trips than asked for. If the State Transport Commissioner exercising powers of the Regional Transport Commissioner granted three regular stage carriage permits with four return trips the respondent-Company being aggrieved for non-grant of the permit for the 5th return trip could file an appeal before the Tribunal. Thus, this stand of the petitioner-Corporation that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to grant permit for the fifth return trip is, therefore, repelled.

It has also been argued on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that after enforcement of the new Act the previous scheme of distribution of permits on 60:40 ratio between the State Undertakings and private operators ceased and if the State Transport Commissioner had rejected the application of the respondent-Company for the grant of permit for fifth return trip, the appeal was not maintainable. This contention again cannot be accepted. The old Act is not applicable to the case. If the provisions of the New Act are kept in view, it would appear that a scheme was required to be approved under Sections 99 and 100 of the Act and if in pursuance of that scheme State Transport Commissioner had refused to entertain any application of a private operation for the grant of the permit. Such an order was not appealable as provided u/s 100(3) of the Act. The aforesaid provision is not attracted to the facts of the. present case. The application of the respondent-Company for the grant of the permit was not rejected in view of the provisions of any scheme approved under Chapter VI of the Act of 1988.

It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that when the State Transport Commissioner advertised application of the respondent-Company for the grant of three regular stage permits with four return trips, it should be deemed that it was so done after he had determined the need for the transport on the route. That being so, the Appellate Tribunal could not grant more permits or more return trips that were advertised. This contention again cannot be accepted. No basis were made out on the file of the case either before the State Transport Commissioner or on the file of the present case that the State Transport Commissioner took any steps to so determine the need. The records of the State Transport Commissioner as produced at the time of arguments also did not indicate any such action taken by the State Transport Commissioner before publication of the advertisement. The contention is, therefore, repelled. No relief in the form of grant of any stage carriage permit with any number of return trip was claimed by the petitioner-Corporation in the objection filed in response to the publication of the application of the respondent-Company for the grant of such permits on the route in dispute. Thus the petitioner-Corporation could not and did not challenge order of the State Transport Commissioner before the Appellate Tribunal with respect to three stage-carriage permits with four return trips. By adding another trip on the permits of the respondent-Company it has not been demonstrated by the petitioner-Corporation that any loss, much less substantial loss, would occur to the writ petitioner. Apart from the petitioner-Corporation another State Undertaking Punjab Roadways is also operating on the route in dispute with more than 100 return trips. No injustice has been caused to the writ petitioner that this Court in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should interfere with the orders passed by the Authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act in the matter of grant of permit in favour of the respondent-Company. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.