Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Nijjer Tourist Co.(Regd.) And ... vs Union Of India And Others on 2 May, 2012
Author: Mahesh Grover
Bench: Mahesh Grover
C.W.P. No.18434 of 2009 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
C.W.P. No.18434 of 2009 (O&M)
DATE OF DECISION : 2.5.2012
M/s Nijjer Tourist Co.(Regd.) and others PETITIONERS
VERSUS
Union of India and others RESPONDENTS
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
Present:- Shri G.S.Bal, Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Vishal Sodhi for Shri Sanjay Kaushal, Advocate
for the respondents.
MAHESH GROVER, J.
The petitioners who are transporters operating contract carriages registered with Chandigarh Administration, have filed the instant petition with their grievance which is directed at enhancement of permit fee of AC/Non-AC Buses to Rs.5000/- and Rs.8000/- per annum respectively on the ground that it is highly exorbitant and disproportionate to the corresponding facilities which are being offered by the Union Territory, Chandigarh.
At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners did not contest the power of the Administration to enhance the permit fee, but restricted his challenge to the notifications dated 1.8.2008 and 27.2.2009 (Anneuxres P-4 and P-5 C.W.P. No.18434 of 2009 -2- respectively) by which the draft rules have been formulated prescribing the said fee and then a final decision affirming the draft proposal has been effected. It has been contended by him that on an earlier occasion, CW.P. No.10358 of 2009 was filed which was also disposed of as it was projected before the Court that the matter was being re-considered.
In the reply submitted by respondents 2 and 3 on behalf of the the Chandigarh Administration, it was stated that before a final notification was issued in the official Gazette, a draft notification dated 16.7.2008 was issued and widely publicized in the local papers and objections and suggestions were invited from the affected parties. The petitioners did not submit any objections at that point of time which led to the publication of the final notification dated 1.8.2008 Anneuxre P-4 giving effect to the enhancement of permit fee. It has further been stated that the permit fee was last revised in the year 1990 and after 18 years, the enhancement has been done which cannot be termed to be arbitrary considering that almost two decades have passed before any revision in this regard was made.
An attempt was made by the learned counsel for the petitioners to make a comparable analysis with the State of Punjab to say that if the permit fee in the said State was lower, then there was no reason as to why the Chandigarh Administration should follow a different practice.
This plea has also been negated stating that the Chandigarh Administration has its own set of rules which govern the transport matters including fixing of the permit fee. It was further averred in the reply that the Chandigarh Administration follows the Delhi pattern and has no connection with the State of Punjab except that there is an agreement between the State of Punjab and the Union Territory, Chandigarh to regulate the operation of such contract carriages.
On due consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that the C.W.P. No.18434 of 2009 -3- power of the Chandigarh Administration to enhance the permit fee having not been questioned, the challenge merely on the ground that it is excessive without there being any corresponding material on record from where it could be understood whether such enhancement is justified or not, leaves the Court with no other option, but to decline such a challenge on this ground. A mere passing reference made that the amenities provided and the service provided do not correspond to the manifold increase, has led the Court to a situation to either decide the issue and accept the challenge on preponderables or to negate such a challenge.
In the opinion of the Court, it would not be justiciable to assume that the amenities proportionate to the enhancement are not being provided by the Chandigarh Administration, particularly in the absence of persuasive material in this regard. The Court is also not oblivious of the fact that the enhancement has come after almost two decades which enhancement was carried out after no objections were received from the Operators despite wide publicity having been given to the intended enhancement. The petitioners have not filed any counter- affidavit to the reply, but denied such a publication and the knowledge thereof while making submissions which leaves the Court with no other option, but to accept what has been stated in the reply.
Looking at the controversy in the light of the observations made above, I am of the opinion that the petition is devoid of any merit and therefore, is dismissed.
(MAHESH GROVER)
May 2, 2012 JUDGE
GD
WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO