PEPSU Road Transport Corporation, Patiala vs State of Punjab and another

A.L. Bahri, J.—Vide this judgment, four writ petitions (Nos. 14759, 14760 and 14761 of 1993 and 255 of 1994) filed by PEPSU Road Transport Corporation against the State of Punjab and others are being disposed of as common question of law is involved therein, which is as under:--

"Whether State Transport Commissioner, exercising powers of Regional Transport Authority has the jurisdiction to extend route-permits of private operators, overlapping the whole or part of monopoly route, as provided under the scheme prepared and approved under Sections 99 and 100 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988?"

Bhikhi to Budhlada is a monopoly-route, as per scheme approved under the Motor Vehicles Act. Private respondent-Nirvair Transport Company in two of the writ petitions (Nos. 14759 and 14761 of 1993) was operating on Barnala-Bhikhi route and they applied for extension of their route up to Budhlada, which was allowed by the State Transport Commissioner vide order dated June 11, 1993 (Annexure P/4). Claim of the petitioner is that this could not legally be done.

In Civil Writ Petition No. 255 of 1994, on the application of private respondent-Khalsa Bus Service extension was granted overlapping Bhikhi-Budhlada monopoly route. Their original route was Barnala to Bhikhi via Dhaula, Kahneke, Aspal Kalan. This Was done vide order dated May 31, 1993 (Annexure P5).

In Civil Writ Petition No. 14760 of 1993, the private respondent is Dhuri Bus Service. Vide order dated June 11, 1993, (Annexure P/3), extension of Barnala-Bagrian route was allowed up to Nabha. Patiala-Malerkotla via Nabha is monopoly router over which the petitioner Corporation was running buses. PEPSU Road Transport Corporation has challenged extension of permits of the private-respondents in this set of writ petitions.

The respondents have contested these writ petitions by filing written statements, inter alia, asserting that their applications for extension of route-permits were got surveyed and finding necessity, keeping in view the services already operating and the public interest orders were passed.

Chapter VI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for framing of schemes by the State Government. After the scheme is prepared u/s 99, objections are invited thereto and finally this scheme is approved u/s 100(3) of the Act. Section 103, which is relevant for consideration in these cases, read as under:--

"103. Issue of permits of State Transport undertakings.-- (1) Where, in pursuance of an approved scheme, any State Transport undertaking applies in such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government in this behalf for a stage carriage permit or a goods carriage permit or a contract carriage permit in respect of a notified area or notified route, the State Transport Authority in any case where the said area or route lies in more than one region and the Regional Transport Authority in any other case shall permit to the State transport Undertaking, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Chapter V.

(2) For the purpose of giving effect to the approved scheme in respect of a notified area or notified route, the State Transport Authority or as the case may be, the Regional Transport Authority concerned may, by order,--

(a) refuse to entertain any application for the grant or renewal of any other permit or reject any such application as may be pending;

(b) cancel any existing permit;

(c) modify the terms of any existing permit so as to-

(i) render the permit ineffective beyond a specified date;

(ii) reduce the number of vehicles authorised to be used under the permit;

(iii) curtail the area or route covered by the permit in so far as such permit relates to the notified area or notified route.

(3) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that no appeal shall lie against any action taken, or order passed, by the State Transport Authority or any Regional Transport Authority under sub-section (1) or subsection (2)".

It may be observed that if no scheme is prepared under Chapter VI, the provisions of Chapter V of the Motor Vehicles Act would continue to apply and permits could be granted in a liberalised manner. However, when a scheme is prepared and approved under Chapter VI, permits are to be granted in accordance with the scheme and the Regional Transport Authority would be within its powers to decline or entertain any application for grant of permit, which is not in accordance with the scheme approved, as provided u/s 103(2) of the Act aforesaid.

The question of grant of permits on the routes covered by the schemes approved under the Motor Vehicles Act came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in several cases. Reference may be made to the latest decision in Ram Krishna Verma and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others, . The earlier decisions were referred to therein. The conclusion arrived at in para 12 of the judgment is as under (at p 1893 of AIR) :--

"The nationalisation of Saharanpur --Shahdara-Delhi route by publication of the approved scheme on Sept. 29, 1959 is operating to the total exclusion of every private operator except U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and 50 operators including the appellants herein whose objections were upheld by the High Court in the first instance and merged in the judgment of this Court in Jeevan Nath Bahl''s case, Equally of Buland-shahar to Delhi route. u/s 80 of the Act no private operator has right to apply for and obtain permits to ply the stage carriages on the approved or notified route/routes or areas or portion thereof."

The grant of fresh permits on the notified routes were quashed.

In Civil Writ Petition No. 14759 of 1993, the scheme approved under the Motor Vehicle Act has been produced/ Extract thereof is Annexure P/2. Monopoly routes were described in scheme, as contained in Annexure A attached thereto (Annexure P/ 3) At item No. 17 is recorded the route Bhikhi-Budhlada via Borawal, over which PEPSU Road Transport Corporation is to ply buses, i.e. a monopoly route. The route on which the private respondents in the set of fresh three writ petitions were operating routes extended to overlap the aforesaid monopoly route Bhikhi to Budhlada. It may be observed that the routes of the private respondents aforesaid are not Highway routes. The private operators cannot be allowed to operate on the monopoly route aforesaid in the manner it has been done in the present case by extension of their routes, which are not Highway routes. It could only be done in the case of private operators to the extent the scheme permitted, i.e. on the Highway routes.

In Civil Writ Petition No. 14759 of 1993, along with the written statement, Annexure E/1 has also been filed, which is part of the scheme showing the State Highways, list of routes over which PEPSU Road Transport Corporation is to ply buses. At item No. 138 is the route described as ''Sangrur-Budhlada via Dhonola, Bhikhi.'' It may be observed, at this stage, that Bhikhi to Budhlada, which is monopoly route as described in Annexure A of the scheme is also part of the State Highway. Annexure R/1 scheme in paras 4 to 7 provides as under :--

"4. All operations existing or future on monopoly routes shall exclusively be undertaken by the State Transport Undertakings.

All future operations of routes on the National Highways falling within the State shall be undertaken by the State Transport Undertakings and the private operators in the ratio of 70:30 which shall be determined on the basis of the passenger road transport needs, as so assessed by the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab, from time to time. The existing operations of the State Transport Undertakings on the National Highways falling within the State are given in Anenxures ''D'' and ''D1''.

All future operations of routes on the State Highways other than the routes specified Clauses 2, 3 and 4 shall be undertaken by the State Transport undertakings and private operators in the ratio of 50:50 which shall be determined on the basis of the passengers road transport needs, as so assessed by the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab, from time to time. The existing operation of routes of the State Transport Undertakings on the State Highways are given in Annexures ''E'' and ''E1''.

All future operations, of routes other than the routes specified in Causes 2, 3 and 4 on the District and other, roads shall be undertaken by the State Transport Under takings and private operators, in the ratio of 50:50 on the basis of the passenger road transport needs, as so assessed by the State Transport Commissioner Punjab, from time to time."

The arguments addressed in this set of petitions are to be viewed in the light of provisions of the scheme. Contention of Shri Jagdish Marwaha, learned counsel for the petitioners, in that Bhikhi to Budhlada being a monopoly route, no application for grant of extension of route permit by a private operator to ply buses on the aforesaid route, wholly or partly, could be entertained and allowed. Shri Baldev Kapoor and other counsel, appearing for the private respondents/operators, argued that since the private-operators on the State-Highway routes could be permitted to ply buses under the scheme aforesaid, there was no bar that by allowing extension of their routes, they could not ply buses, wholly or partly, over the monopoly route. It is in this context that they further argued that their applications for grant of extension in their routes were legally processed and were allowed after inviting objections. This contention of learned counsel for the private respondents cannot be accepted. At the outset, it may be observed that the legal position is not being disputed that in the case of extension of route-permits only objections are invites, whereas in case of grant of Regular Stage Carriage Permits, the applications are invited and the persons desirous of getting the route permits can apply. It is only thereafter that the respective merits of the parties claiming permits are considered and such permits are allowed or denied. In the present cases, the applications of the private, respondents, which were for extension of their existing route-permits, were published inviting objections. In such applications, objectors could not claim any permits. They could merely object, Since the route in dispute, over which extension was sought, is a monopoly route of the petitioners, as per scheme aforesaid, the petitioners could raise a valid objection. The private-operators, who were plying buses on highway routes could not claim, as a matter of right, extension of their routes overlapping wholly or partly over the monopoly routes, as the same would be clearly infringing the provisions of the scheme approved.

The other argument is only with respect to the private-operators who could operate on State-Highways, as described in Annexure E/1 of the Scheme. It is only to that extent that the private-operators could ply their buses, covering the monopoly routes, if it overlapped the State Highway routes. Contention of learned counsel for the respondents that Barnala-Bhikhi should be treated as State-Highway route, being unextended to Budhlada and the State Transport Commissioner was, thus, justified in granting the extension. This contention is devoid of merit. A perusal of Annexure P/ 5, the route-plan, would negative the contention of counsel for the respondents. Their routes, as described above cannot be treated as State-Highways routes. As already stated above, if the State Transport Commissioner was of the opinion that more bus services were required on the State Highway routes, the applications could be invited and the petitioner could also have been contender for the additional permits, if need was determined. Since the private respondents'' routes, on which they were plying their buses under the permits granted, though known as Barnala-Bhikhi routes, are not State Highway routes as their routes are via other villages, as described above, the State Transport Commissioner passed orders of extension of their route-permits while passing the impugned orders in the aforesaid writ petitions, violating provisions of the scheme and thus the impugned orders in the aforesaid writ petitions cannot be sustained.

The learned counsel for the petitioner further referred to the decision of Single Bench of this Court in PEPSU Road Transport Corporation v. State of Punjab 1993 P LR 243 : AIR 1994 NOC 50) wherein it was held that there has to be two terminus, as defined under Act, to constitute a route. Bhikhi cannot be held to be terminus in these routes. There is force in this contention. The decision aforesaid is not applicable to the case in hand. No interpretation of implementation of the scheme was involved therein and the question of extension of private routes overlapping monopoly routes was not involved therein.

In the fourth writ petition, the position is again similar to the three writ petitions referred to above, although the route is different. The impugned order in this writ petition also requires to be quashed.

For the reasons recorded above, these writ petitions are allowed and the impugned order passed by the State Transport Commissioner, exercising powers of the Regional Transport Authority, extending the routes of the private respondents, overlapping partly or wholly on the monopoly routes of the petitioner are quashed.

Petitions allowed.