Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hoshiarpur National Transport Pvt. Ltd vs State Transport Appellate Tribunal on 30 May, 2012
Author: Rajiv Narain Raina
Bench: Rajiv Narain Raina
CWP No. 6516 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
DATE OF DECISION : 30.5.2012
Hoshiarpur National Transport Pvt. Ltd., Hoshiarpur And others
...Petitioners
Versus
State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA
PRESENT: Mr.H.S.Sawhney, Sr.Advocate with
Mr.Balbir Singh Giri, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr.Sushant Maini, Sr.DAG, Punjab
....
Notes: 1.Whether to be referred to the reporters or not?
2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
....
RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.
The Regional Transport Authority, Jalandhar invited applications through public notice dated 8.4.1998 published in the Motor Transport Gazette (Weekly), Chandigarh for grant of two stage carriage permits for plying two return trips daily on the Hoshiarpur-Anandpur Sahib via Jahan Khelan, Chak Sandhu, Una, Mehatpur route. In response to the notice, 55 applications were received including four from the petitioners. The State Transport Commissioner, Punjab (for short "the STC") held a meeting on 28.8.1998 and considered the competing interest of the applicants and by order dated 5.6.2000 granted one stage carriage permit with one return trip daily on the route each in favour of Hardev Singh son of Chain Singh, resident of VPO Rurki Khas, Tehsil Garhshanker, CWP No. 6516 of 2012 2 District Hoshiarpur and Punjab Roadways, Nangal Depot. For some reasons, both the grantees did not lift the permit granted which were thus rendered vacant. Aggrieved of the orders of the STC, several appeals were filed before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab (for short "the STAT") including those of the petitioners. The Tribunal vide order dated 19.8.2008, granted one stage carriage permit with one return trip daily on the route in favour of Jyoti Bus Service (Regd.), Hoshiarpur and one permit with half trip daily each in favour of Hoshiarpur National Transport Pvt. Ltd., Hoshiapur, M/s Jyoti Bus Service Regd. and Kartar Bus Service Ltd., Jalandhar, petitioners no.1, 2 and 3, respectively to this petition. These stage carriage permits were transferred by the said three Transport Operators to the 4th petitioner, M/s Rajdhani Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. Aggrieved by the order of the STAT, Punjab, the Punjab Government in the Transport Department filed CWP No.16311 of 2010 before this Court and vide order dated 23.12.2010, the appellate order dated 19.8.2008 was set aside and the matter was remanded for deciding it afresh in accordance with law at the earliest. On remand, the learned STAT, Punjab vide order dated 24.3.2011 dismissed the appeals of the petitioners and the STC, Punjab was directed to invite fresh applications for grant of requisite number of stage carriage permits for plying bus service on the route in question and to complete the process within six months from the date of receipt of the order, subject to execution of reciprocal transport agreement between the Government of Punjab and the Government of Himachal Pradesh. It is against the fresh order passed in remand proceedings that the present petition has been filed.
On notice having been issued, the State has filed its reply by way of counter affidavit of Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jalandhar in which it has been stated that the reciprocal transport agreement between the two governments was published vide notification dated 23.1.2008. The only issue raised in this petition by Mr. H.S.Sawhney, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners assisted by Mr. Balvir Singh Giri, Advocate is that the STAT fell in error in inviting fresh applications for the permits notified in 1998 thereby CWP No. 6516 of 2012 3 unlawfully increasing the zone of consideration. The submission is that adopting this course would give a chance to those who had applied initially in response to the earlier advertisement and had remained unsuccessful and had not agitated the matter further in appropriate proceedings.
At the stage of motion hearing, when notice of motion was issued, the petitioners had relied on a decision of this Court in the case of M/s Mohali Bus Service Regd. Jalandhar v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh and others, AIR 1992 P&H 162 in which this Court while speaking through N.K.Sodhi, J. held as follows:-
"5.Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that by remanding the case back for inviting fresh applications, the Appellate Tribunal would be giving another chance to applicants who had already applied but had failed in obtaining a permit or who did not choose to apply in response to the earlier advertisement. I find force in this contention. In my opinion, the Appellate Tribunal could not remand the case and had to restrict its choice only to the appellants and the stage. It is a settled principle of law that the State Transport Commissioner cannot now hear the applications who either did not apply in the first instance or who did not prefer appeals against the non-grant of permits to them. This is so because where an application for a permit is rejected, that application comes to an end and if such an applicant does not appeal, the Appellate Tribunal while dealing with the appeals filed by other aggrieved applicants has no jurisdiction to direct the transport Commissioner to consider and dispose of afresh even the applications which had been rejected but no appeals therefrom were preferred. The view I have taken finds support from a Division Bench judgment of the Assam High Court in Narendera Kumar Dass v. The Appellate Boad, AIR 1960 Assam 100 and also from a judgment of Madras High Court in the Anamalais Bus Transports (P) Ltd., Polachi v. Sri Tiruppur Karur Transports (P) Ltd., Tirippur, AIR 1966 Madras 470. A somewhat similar view was taken by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Cumbum Roadways (P) Ltd. v. Somu-Transport (P) Ltd., AIR 1966 SC 1366 and also in Hanuman Transport Co. Ltd. v. Meenakshi G.Ramabhai, Civil Appeal No.794 of 1963: (reported in 1963 SC (Notes)
375)."
This issue also arose in a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Majhi Motors (Regd.), Patiala vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab and others (CWP No.3613 of 2005 decided on 13.7.2006) wherein the Division Bench relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in Cumbum Roadways (P) Ltd. v. Somu Transport (P) Ltd., AIR 1966 Supreme Court 1366 in which their CWP No. 6516 of 2012 4 Lordships held as follows:-
"...On principle therefore it does not appear right that the High Court should set aside orders in appeal passed by the Appellate Tribunal when the parties to those appeals do not bring up the matter before the High Court, simply because as a matter of convenience the Appellate Tribunal deals with all the appeals relating to one route by a consolidated order. Therefore, we are of opinion that the remand should only be confined to those parties which came to the High Court and not extend to others, as the High Court would have no jurisdiction to interfere with the orders of the Appellate Tribunal either in favour of or against the parties which have not come to it. In the circumstances, the order of the Appeal Court will have to be modified and the remand confined to a reconsideration of the appeal of the present appellant alone as against the claims of the respondent, and the Appellate Tribunal should decide between these two only who should be granted the permit for the route in question."
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present case is covered by the ratio of the aforesaid judgments. The impugned order dated 24.3.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by the STAT, Punjab, Chandigarh is modified to the extent that only the petitioners are entitled for fresh consideration as ordered by the Tribunal to the exclusion of fresh aspirants qua the two advertised permits. This order would not operate qua any other permit other than the two advertised in 1998. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.
(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE 30.5.2012 MFK