Punjab-Haryana High Court
The Zamidara Cooperative Transport ... vs The State Transport ... on 1 February, 2012
CWP No.923 of 2012 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.923 of 2012
Date of decision : 01.02.2012
The Zamidara Cooperative Transport Society Ltd.
...... Petitioner
v.
The State Transport Commissioner-cum-Chairman and others
...... Respondents
***
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI
***
Present : Mr. Lekh Raj Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner.
***
AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral)
The petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.05.2011 passed by respondent No.3.
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was earlier granted route permit No.40 from Bilochpura to Jhajjar as per 1993 Scheme (Annexure P-1). Under Chapter V of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) a route permit can be extended only for 24 kms. By Government instructions dated 18.01.2002 power was granted to the Regional Transport Authorities to make provision for extension even beyond 24 kms. However, thereafter a Division Bench of this Court while deciding CWP No.3328 of 2007 on 30.10.2007 titled as 'Guru Gobind CWP No.923 of 2012 -2- Transport Society Ltd. v. State of Haryana and others' by relying upon a Division Bench of Kerala High Court in Kuaihikrishnan Nair v. R.T.O. Malappuram, 1991(2) KLT 266 held that the Government instructions dated 18.01.2002 were invalid being contrary to Chapter V of the Act and no extension beyond 24 kms would be granted. However, even after the pronouncement of this decision the permit of the petitioner was renewed with the same extension i.e. beyond 24 kms. By instructions dated 01.10.2009 the respondent No.4 communicated to Regional Transport Authorities in Haryana about the passing of the above mentioned judgment of this Court as also the fact that the said judgment had been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dismissing SLP No.22774 of 2007 on 04.01.2008. The respondent No.4 also directed that in the light of the above mentioned judgments no permit could be extended beyond 24 kms. After the receipt of this instruction the impugned order was passed whereby the petitioner was directed that the extension of his permit would be limited to 21 kms.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that by the impugned order retrospectivity had been granted by the judgment which was not intended by the Court. His second argument is that even the instructions dated 01.10.2009 envisaged only that in future the permit could not be granted and the instruction nowhere envisaged that those permits which had already been granted should be curtailed. His third argument is that no power of review vested by Transport Authorities and even if the extension was illegal it could be set aside only if the same was challenged.
It is not disputed that the petitioner had applied for renewal of its permit. That application was not considered and ultimately the petitioner CWP No.923 of 2012 -3- filed civil writ petition bearing CWP No.12175 of 2010 in this Court. The said writ petition was decided on 14.07.2010 and a direction was given to the Regional Transport Authority to decide the application of the petitioner. Pursuant to that direction the permit of the petitioner was renewed. In the circumstances, it is clear that the permit was renewed after the judgment of this Court, after the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and after the instructions dated 01.10.2009. The renewal was in clear terms illegal and by the impugned order that mistake has been rectified. There is no question of retrospectivity involved.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
( AJAY TEWARI ) February 01, 2012 JUDGE ashish