TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 1188X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ampering with the Scheme as well as disturbing the ratio fixed by the Scheme by granting regular permits to the private sector from the quota earmarked for STUs. Once a scheme is approved and published, private operators have no right to claim regular permits to operate their vehicles in the notified area, route or portion thereof upsetting the ratio fixed. Since the scheme makes provision for partial exclusion, the private operators are not completely excluded, they may get regular permits on the notified route or portion thereof in accordance with the terms and conditions laid down in the scheme and within the quota earmarked for them. In our view same is the situation in respect of a case where an STU inspite of grant of permit does not operate the service or surrenders the permit granted or not utilizing the permit. In such a situation it should be deemed that no application for permit has been made by the STU and it is open to the RTA to grant temporary permit if there is a temporary need. By granting regular permits to the private operators RTA will be upsetting the ratio fixed under the scheme which is legally impermissible. A writ Court seldom interferes with the ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice, 112 applications were received which included the applications from the General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Moga as well as from the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Faridkot, (STUs). 5. The contents of the applications were published in the Motor Transport Gazette Weekly, Chandigarh in its issue dated 22.4.1999 inviting representations/suggestions from the general public, but there was no response. 6. Out of the 112 applicants, 31 applicants failed to respond. Out of four permits, it was decided by the Commissioner that two permits with one return trip daily be allotted to STUs and other two trips to the private operators. The General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Moga applied for the ....5/- grant of two stage carriage permits with one return trip daily in the notified route and the General Manager, Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Faridkot applied for the grant of four stage carriage permits for plying two return trips daily on that route. 7. The representatives of the STUs submitted that due share of mileage be allotted to them. The Commissioner heard the rest of the applicants who had applied for permits in the private sector. It was decided that the applicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The Writ Petition C.W.P. No.8483/2005 came up before a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court on 24.10.2005. It was represented before the Court that since STUs had failed to operate the two permits granted to them, those permits be granted to the Writ Petitioner. The High Court took the view that the Tribunal was not justified in declining grant of permit to the Writ Petitioner on the ground of delay and on the ground that its sister concern had already been granted a permit on 9.11.2004. Further, the High Court also took the view that due to non user of the permit by the STUs, public will be the sufferer. The Court noticed that the permit granted to STUs was neither utilized nor operated and, hence, it was not open to the STUs to raise any objection regarding the grant of permit to the writ petitioner. The High Court, therefore, gave a positive direction to the Commissioner to grant one stage carriage permit with half return trip daily to the said writ petitioner. The permits granted to the other private operators were not interfered with. 11. C.W.P. No.11768/2005 later came up for hearing before the Division Bench on 1.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osition to operate services on the notified routes. Learned counsel submitted that granting permits falling in the share of STUs to the private operators would be against the provisions of the Act and the Rules and the provisions of notified scheme. Learned counsel submitted that even if STUs had failed to utilize the permits or surrendered the permits, or had failed to apply for permits on the notified routes those vacancies could be filled up only by inviting fresh applications and only temporary permits could be granted in case if there is a public need. Learned counsel submitted that the Tribunal and the High Court have committed a grave error in directing the RTA to grant regular permits to the private operators on the notified routes upsetting the ratio fixed by the scheme in gross violation of the proviso to Section 104 of the Act. 15. Mr. Jawahar Lal Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for the contesting respondents submitted that there is no illegality in the order passed by the High Court in directing the grant of stage carriage permits to the private operators since there was failure on the part of STUs in operating the services in spite of grant of permits. Learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all 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 Annexures `D' and D-1. (6) all future operations of routes on the State Highways other than the routes specified in 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 passenger 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 Annexure `E' and `E-1'. (7) All future operations of routes other than the routes specified in clauses 2,3 and 4 on District and other roads shall be undertaken by the State Transport Undertakings and private operators in the ratio of 50:50 on the basis of the passenger road transport roads, as to assessed by the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab, from the time to time. [Page 8 of the Written Notes]. 18. An ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat due to surrendering of large number of return trips on the route, the public of that area was put to considerable hardships and inconvenience. Consequently it was pointed out that there is no illegality in granting regular permits to the private operators in the vacancies occurred either due to surrender of permits or not utilizing the permits or on omission to apply for permits in the notified routes. 20. The Tribunal in Appeal No. 46 of 2000 and connected matters, decided on 28.10.2005 has taken a view that where an STU applies for permit and if it is granted and, thereafter the STUs fail to operate the services inspite of grant, they will lose their right and share of the permits unless the route in question is Inter-state or monopoly routes. Further, it was also held if the permit is not utilized within the maximum period of six months under Sub-rule 5 of Rule 128 of the Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 the RTA could revoke the sanction of the permit. Further it was also held in such a case RTA has a right to issue regular permits and not temporary permits as provided in the proviso to Section 104 of the Act. 21. We find it difficult to accept the reasoning of the Tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heme is approved and published, private operators have no right to claim regular permits to operate their vehicles in the notified area, route or portion thereof upsetting the ratio fixed. Since the scheme makes provision for partial exclusion, the private operators are not completely excluded, they may get regular permits on the notified route or portion thereof in accordance with the terms and conditions laid down in the scheme and within the quota earmarked for them. 23. Therefore, a combined reading of Sections 99, 100 and 104 in the light of Section 2(38) of the Act, makes it clear that once a scheme is published under Section 100 in relation to any area or route or portion thereof, whether in complete or partial exclusion of other persons, no persons other than STUs may operate on the notified area or route except as provided in the scheme itself. Reference can be made to the decisions of this Court in Adarsh Travels Bus Service and Anr. vs. State of U.P. and Ors., (1985) 4 SCC 557, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Lucknow vs. Anwar Ahmad and Ors. (1997) 3 SCC 191, Ram Krishna Verma vs State of U.P. (1992) 2 SCC 620. 24. Section 104 of the Act specifically restric ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held as follows:- it would, therefore, be seen that where the scheme has been published under sub-section (3) of Section 100 in respect of any notified area or notified route, the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority, as the case may be, shall not grant any permit except in accordance with the provisions of the scheme. Thus, the appellant- Corporation has the exclusive right or monopoly to ply their stage carriages and obtain the required permit as per the scheme. The proviso gives only a limited breath of life, namely, until the Corporation puts the vehicles on the notified routes as per the scheme, temporary permits may be granted to private operators. Thereby, it would be clear that temporary inconvenience to traveling public is sought to be averted till the permits are taken and vehicles are put on the route by the appellant. Therefore, the temporary permits will have only limited breath of life. Private operators are attempting to wear the mask of inconvenience of traveling public to infiltrate into forbidden notified area, route or portion thereof to sabotage the scheme..... 26. We may point out if the public is put to hardship or inconvenien ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
