Punjab-Haryana High Court
Baba Deep Singh Transport Co vs State Transport Appellate Tribunal on 24 April, 2012
Author: Rajiv Narain Raina
Bench: Rajiv Narain Raina
CWP No.7652 of 2009 &
CWP No.15978 of 2010
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
1. CWP No.7652 of 2009
Baba Deep Singh Transport Co. ..... Petitioner
Versus
State Transport Appellate Tribunal
and others ..... Respondents
2. CWP No.15978 of 2010
The State of Punjab ..... Petitioner
Versus
State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab
and others ..... Respondents
Date of Decision: 24.04.2012
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA
Present: Mr. P.S. Bawa, Advocate,
for the petitioner in CWP No.7652 of 2009.
Mr. R.S. Chauhan, DAG, Punjab,
for the petitioner in CWP No.15978 of 2010.
Mr. A.M. Punchhi, Advocate,
for respondent No.3.
****
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.
1. This petition shall dispose of the present and the connected writ petition No.15978 of 2010 filed by the State of Punjab against the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (for short "the STAT") dated 15.09.2008.
2. The challenge in this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of CWP No.7652 of 2009 & CWP No.15978 of 2010 -2- the Constitution is to the order dated 15.09.2008 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh. The further prayer is to quash the order dated 30.05.1996 passed by the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab (for short "the STC").
3. That long ago on 15.12.1992 the Regional Transport Authority invited applications for grant of 4 Regular Stage Carriage permits to ply 2 return trips on the Jalandhar - Mansa via Ludhiana, Raikot, Barnala route. The notice was published in the Motor Transport Gazette. In response thereto 108 applications were received including that of the petitioner. The applications were heard by the STC, Punjab at a meeting held on 21.12.1993. In terms of the scheme framed by the State Government then prevailing the ratio of permits was divided 50:50. Therefore, 2 permits with one return trip went to the share of State undertakings while remaining two to the share of the private sector. The State undertakings i.e. the Punjab Roadways, Jalandhar and the PRTC, Kapurthala had submitted applications. They were each granted 1 permit with half return trip. The STC granted one permit with half return trip each to Amar Bus Service Regd. Ludhiana and Janta Bus Service Regd., Mansa. The order was passed on 30.05.1996.
4. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 30.05.1996 the petitioner filed an appeal before the STAT. The appeal has been dismissed vide order dated 15.09.2008 (P-2). It is this order which has been impugned in this petition. The 3rd respondent transport company was also aggrieved by the order and had preferred an appeal against it. The 3rd respondent is an existing operator. The petitioner staked his claim for grant of a route permit as a new entrant. In appeal, the Punjab Roadways, Jalandhar who had been CWP No.7652 of 2009 & CWP No.15978 of 2010 -3- granted one route permit with half return trip, surrendered its right to the said permit as they found the same not viable. That is how in appeal the 3rd respondent - Libra Bus Service Pvt. Ltd. was granted permit. Under the impugned appellate order dated 15.09.2008, the learned Tribunal on comparison made between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent has found that Libra Bus Service Pvt. Ltd. admittedly is an existing operator holding 40 permits with 57 buses covering a daily mileage of 12180 Kms. It was found providing complaint free service to the travelling public and paying its taxes regularly. As an existing big operator, it can be said to have a spare operational capacity. The company is also operating Air-conditioned buses from Chandigarh to Hisar and Chandigarh to Delhi and operates on the international route i.e. Delhi to Lahore as well and has vast experience in the transport business. It was also found operating on the major portion of the route in question while operating its buses on various routes. From this overlapping, Mr. P.S. Bawa, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that grant of one permit with half return trip would act as a monopoly in favour of the 3rd respondent which is unfair. The learned Tribunal found the petitioner a new entrant with no experience in the transport business and, therefore, found it fit to allow the appeal of Libra Bus Service Pvt. Ltd. and grant it one permit with half return trip.
5. Mr. P.S. Bawa, learned counsel for the petitioner while appearing as counsel for the petitioner before the Appellate Tribunal contended that the appeal of Libra Bus Service Pvt. Ltd. was time barred since it had been filed on 09.07.2008 challenging the order passed way back on 30.05.1996 i.e. about 12 years ago. This is an argument of desperation. CWP No.7652 of 2009 & CWP No.15978 of 2010 -4- The petitioner was in no better or worse position than the 3rd respondent since both were in appeal before the learned Tribunal. He submits that the limitation for filing appeal is 30 days. Learned Tribunal has held that both appeals have been filed within limitation from the date of knowledge. However, the petitioner's appeal has been dismissed on two counts. One i.e. certified copy of the order has not been filed with the appeal; and two, on merits as well.
6. The issue of limitation has been decided by a Full Bench of this Court in CWP No. 8229 of 2007 decided on 30.01.2009 in the case of Jagtar Singh v. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal and others which is relied upon by Mr. P.S. Bawa, learned counsel for the petitioner. The operative part of the judgment of Full Bench reads as under:-
"We respectfully approved the reasoning given in the decision rendered by this Court in Banda Bahadur's case (supra) and hold that even in cases where there is no formal communication of the order passed by the State or Regional Transport Authority, the period of limitation prescribed for filing the appeal would start running from the date of aggrieved party acquires actual or constructive knowledge of the making of the said order. Whether or not the aggrieved party had any such knowledge will, however, be a matter to be seen by the Tribunal in each case depending upon its peculiar facts and circumstances. It will not, therefore, be necessary or proper for us to enumerate exhaustively situations in which such knowledge can be imputed to the party aggrieved, while examining whether or not be appeal is within limitation.
The reference is answered accordingly. The petition shall now be placed before the Appropriate Bench for hearing and CWP No.7652 of 2009 & CWP No.15978 of 2010 -5- disposal in accordance with law."
7. By applying the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court, it cannot be said that the decision of the learned Tribunal on point of limitation is contrary to law or fact. I do not see any valid or cogent reason to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the STAT. The writ petition (CWP No.7652/2009) is consequently dismissed.
8. Insofar as Civil Writ petition No.15978 of 2010 filed by the State of Punjab against the order of the STAT, I am inclined to dismiss this writ petition on the ground that the State of Punjab has no locus standi to prosecute the petition when there is no conflict of interest between Punjab Roadways, the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. The present matter remains inter se private operators.
8. To strengthen his argument, Mr. A.M. Punchhi, learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent against the State writ, has brought to my notice a short order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No.16005 of 2010 rendered on 13.02.2012. The writ petition filed by the State was dismissed by passing the following order:-
"This petition has been filed by the State of Punjab against the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal whereby it granted permit to respondents No.3 and 4 on Sultanpur to Ludhiana via Kapurthala, Jalandhar route which was earlier granted to Punjab Roadways, Ludhiana and P.R.T.C. and which has not been used for the last 10 years.
Learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 4 state that writ petition bearing CWP No.10941 of 2011 filed by the operator viz., P.R.T.C. is now fixed for 20.03.2012 and in any case State of Punjab or the Punjab Roadways would have no CWP No.7652 of 2009 & CWP No.15978 of 2010 -6- locus standi to prosecute the present petition and more so, when the petition of the affected operator viz., P.R.T.C. is pending for 20.03.2012 the State of Punjab would have no locus standi.
In this view of the matter, the petition is dismissed."
9. The petition filed by the State is wholly misconceived and the same is dismissed with Rs.20,000/- as costs. Costs be paid to the Punjab State Legal Services Authority within a period of 2 months from today. If the cost is not paid, the office shall list the case for appropriate orders.
10. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of the other connected case.
(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) 24.04.2012 JUDGE manju