Punjab-Haryana High Court
Majha Malwa Transport Company vs State Transport Appellate Tribunal on 2 November, 1998
Equivalent citations: (1999)121PLR618
Author: N.C. Khichi
Bench: N.C. Khichi
JUDGMENT Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.
1. The petitioner, a transport Company, was granted 2 stage carriage permits with one return trip on the Mohali-Kapurthala route by the State Transport Commissioner. A copy of the order passed by the authority on December 25, 1988 has been produced as Annexure P. I with the writ petition. The unsuccessful applicants filed appeals. The permit granted to the petitioner was annulled by the appellate authority. It was found that the petitioner-firm had five partners out of whom four were members of the economically weaker section of the society. Since the 5th partner did not fall in that class, the petitioner was not eligible for the grant of a permit which was exclusively reserved for the members of the economically weaker section of the society. Thus, relying upon the provisions of Section 47(2E) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939, the appellate Tribunal found that "the grant of two permits with one return trip daily to M/s Majha Malwa Transport Co. is against the provisions of law and is hereby set aside." On consideration of the claims of the other appellants the permits were allotted to various eligible candidates including respondents 3 to 5.
2. The petitioner alleges that its claim has been wrongly rejected. It prays that the order dated September 25, 1991, passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, a copy of which has been produced as Ann. P.2 with the writ petition be quashed.
3. A written statement has been filed by respondent No. 4. The averments in the petition have been controverted. The petitioner has not filed any replication.
4. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the -Tribunal had arbitrarily rejected the claim of the petitioner and that the permits were illegally granted to respondents 3 to 5. The claim made on behalf of the petitioner has been controverted by the learned counsel for the respondents.
5. The two questions that arise for consideration are:
(1) Has the petitioner's claim been arbitrarily rejected by the Tribunal?
(2) Has the Tribunal illegally granted the stage carriage permits to respondents 3 to 5?
Regarding 1 :
It is the admitted position that the petitioner-firm consists of five partners. Out of these four partners are undoubtedly from the economically weaker section of the society. However, the 5th partner (Gurcharan Singh) did not belong to that class. It is in view of this factual position that the petitioner's claim had to be considered by the competent authority.
It is undoubtedly true that despite this factual position the State Transport Commissioner had considered it appropriate to grant a permit to the petitioner. However, while doing so, the prohibition contained in Section 47(1-F) that the permit shall not be granted "unless the members of the co- operative society or the partners of the firm belong to the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes or economically weaker sections of the community" was totally ignored. All the partners did not belong to the economically weaker section. Thus they could not have granted the permit in view of Section 47(1-F). It was a mistake. This mistake has been rectified by the Tribunal. In doing so, the Tribunal has acted in strict conformity with the provisions of law and not in derogation thereof. Consequently, there is no infirmity in the order by which the permit granted to the petitioner has been cancelled.
In view of the above, the first question is answered against the petitioner. It is held that the order of the Tribunal by which the petitioner's claim was rejected, is not arbitrary. In fact the order is in strict conformity with the provisions of law. Regarding 2 :
Mr. Sharma contended that the allotment of the permit to respondent No. 3 is bad inasmuch as the members of the firm were neither economically weak nor were they members of the Scheduled Caste. It is, however, conceded by the counsel that two persons belonged to the category of Scheduled Castes while the other two were from the economically weaker section. Both the categories were eligible and nothing has been pointed out to show that the action was not in conformity with the provisions of Section 47(1-F).
6. With regard to respondent No. 4, it has been found by the State Transport Commissioner that the application for the grant of permit had not been signed by one of the two persons. It was held that the application had been signed by Charanjit Singh Gill who was neither a partner nor an authorised agent. The appellate Tribunal has reversed the order with the finding that the application has been signed by Nachhattar Singh who was one of the partners. Mr. Sharma contends that the Tribunal could not have gone into the facts. We are unable to uphold this contention. The statute entities a person aggrieved by the refusal or j grant of a permit to file an appeal. In the very nature of things an appeal is a rehearing of the case. The appellate authority exercises all the powers to correct the errors of fact and law. In the present case, the appellate authority found as a fact that the State Transport Commissioner had passed an order under a mistake. It had wrongly held that the application was signed by Charanjit Singh and not by a partner. Finding the order to be against the record, the appellate Tribunal had set aside the decision. In the writ petition, the petitioner has not produced anything before us to show that the finding is contrary to the facts. The only plea raised in the petition is contained in para 11 (iii). It has been vaguely averred that "this respondent replaced the application later." Such a plea was not raised before the Tribunal. Still further, the 4th respondent has denied the allegation. The petitioner has not filed any replication or produced any material to show that the application was actually replaced.In this situation.we find no ground to interfere with the view taken by the appellate Tribunal.
7. Lastly Mr. Sharma has contended that respondent No. 5 should not have been granted a permit as it was .already allotted a permit for operating on the Fatehgarh Sahib-Amritsar route. Mr. Punchhi, who appears for the 5th respondent has stated before us that this ground is a reproduction of the averment in CWP 15634 of 1991, Mohinider Singh v. State Transport Commissioner, Punjab. Jaswinder Singh to whom a route permit had been granted a Fatehgarh SahibAmritsar route, is a different person and not respondent No. 5. He further submits that the petitioner can verify this fact and that if it is found that the 5th respondent has been granted any permit on the Fatehgarh Sahib Amritsar route, he may be penalised to any extent.
8. In view of this categorical position as taken on behalf of the respondents, we are unable to sustain the petitioner's claim. Even otherwise, the petitioner has not produced anything on record to show that the 5th respondent has been actually granted a permit on the Fatehgarh Sahib-Amritsar route.
9. In view of the above, even the answer to the second question is against the petitioner.
10. No other point has been raised.
11. In view of the above, we find no merit in this petition. It is consequently dismissed. In the circumstances. there will be order as to costs.