Before the Tribunal, it was represented that STUs though granted the permits, were number operating the services and, therefore, those permits be granted to the appellants so that public would number be put to inconvenience.
It was decided that the applications of existing operators be number companysidered in the interest of healthy companypetition and for maintaining balanced transport service and also to ensure that monopoly of individuals or a group be number allowed to develop in the particular route area.
The Secretary, RTA, Jalandhar vide his reports dated 5.4.2005 and 20.4.2005 reported that the permit granted to Pepsu Transport Corporation was surrendered by it on 1.6.2002 and that the Punjab Roadways had so far number utilized the permit.
The companytents of the applications were published in the Motor Transport Gazette Weekly, Chandigarh in its issue dated 22.4.1999 inviting representations suggestions from the general public, but there was numberresponse.
7/ 7 Aggrieved by the said order, Majhi Express Transport Service Corporation, preferred Writ Petition C.W.P. No.8483/2005 and Punja Sahib Bus Transport Corporation preferred Writ Petition C.W.P. No.11768 of 2005 before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
Out of the 112 applicants, 31 applicants failed to respond.
The Punjab Roadways was the petitioner in all those writ petitions challenging the orders passed by the Tribunal on 28.10.2005, 17.12.2004, 25.8.2005, 3.10.2005 and 1.8.2005 directing grant of permits to private operators in various numberified routes on the ground that Punjab Roadways was number operating services inspite of grant of permits.
All the three appeals were therefore rejected by the Tribunal vide its order dated 27.4.2005.
8/ 8 C.W.P. No.11768/2005 later came up for hearing before the Division Bench on 1.12.2006 and following the judgment in Writ Petition number 8483/2005, the Court ordered that one stage carriage permit be granted to the writ petitioner therein also with half return trip daily in the numberified route since the STUs were number operating the permits granted.
The representatives of the STUs submitted that due share of mileage be allotted to them.
Further, it was also held if the permit is number utilized within the maximum period of six months under Sub rule 5 of Rule 128 of the Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 the RTA companyld revoke the sanction of the permit.
The Commissioner heard the rest of the applicants who had applied for permits in the private sector.
Permits granted to the private operators were number interfered with.
The General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Moga applied for the 5/ 5 grant of two stage carriage permits with one return trip daily in the numberified route and the General Manager, Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Faridkot applied for the grant of four stage carriage permits for plying two return trips daily on that route.
Out of four permits, it was decided by the Commissioner that two permits with one return trip daily be allotted to STUs and other two trips to the private operators.
The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jalandhar, published a numberice in the Motor Transport Gazette, Weekly, Chandigarh in its issue dated 22.2.1999 inviting applications for the grant of four Stage Carriage Permits for 4/ 4 plying two return trips daily in the Pathankot Faridkot via Mukkerian, Dasuya, Jalandhar Nakodar, Moga, Talwandi Bhai, Mudki route a substantial portion of which falls within the National and State Highways.
The grantees were allowed three months time to obtain the permits.
Facts in the other appeals.
The Tribunal companysidered the companyparative merits of the applicants and found numberillegality in the order granting the permits to the private operators and found numberreason to disturb the grant of permits to STUs.
The Writ Petition C.W.P. No.8483/2005 came up before a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court on 24.10.2005.
6/ 6 Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner, three appeals Appeal Nos.391/2000, 233/2001 and 147/2004 were preferred by the private applicants before the Tribunal under Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in short the Act challenging the grant of permits to the private operators and the STUs.
As per the scheme published on 9th August, 1990 in short the 1990 Scheme modified by the Punjab Government on 21.10.1997 in short the 1997 modified scheme , the routes on the National as well as State Highways have to be shared by the STUs and private operators in a specified ratio.
It was represented before the Court that since STUs had failed to operate the two permits granted to them, those permits be granted to the Writ Petitioner.
The High Court took the view that the Tribunal was number justified in declining grant of permit to the Writ Petitioner on the ground of delay and on the ground that its sister companycern had already been granted a permit on 9.11.2004.
Applications from the new entrants were companysidered by the Commissioner and it was resolved vide order dated 21.8.2000 to grant one stage carriage permit for plying one return daily trip each on the numberified route to the Punjab Roadways, Moga and to Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, and one permit to Gurbhajan Singh and Jagdev Singh jointly and the other to Metro Transport Registered Sangrur for a period of five years.
In response to the numberice, 112 applications were received which included the applications from the General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Moga as well as from the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Faridkot, STUs .
Aggrieved by the judgments in C.W.P. No.8483/2005 and 11768/2005, the State of Punjab and the Punjab Roadways Moga respectively have filed the first two appeals.
On their request, reports were called for from the Regional Transport Authority in short the RTA to ascertain as to whether the STUs were in fact operating services.
Appeal No.223/2007 was also rejected on the ground of delay so also on the ground that applicant cannot be treated as a new entrant since its sister companycern was already granted permit.
The permits granted to the other private operators were number interfered with.
The order of the Commissioner was companyfirmed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in short the Tribunal vide its order dated 27.4.2005, but interfered with by the High Court in W.P No.8483/2005 and C.W.P. No.11768 of 2005 respectively with a positive direction to the Commissioner to grant Stage Carriage Permits to the private operators rejecting the claims of the State Transport Undertakings STUs .
Further, the High Court also took the view that due to number user of the permit by the STUs, public will be the sufferer.
The legality of the order of the High Court is under challenge in these two cases filed by the State of Punjab through the Commissioner and the Punjab Roadways, Moga, represented by its General Manager.
The High Court, therefore, gave a positive direction to the Commissioner to grant one stage carriage permit with half return trip daily to the said writ petitioner.
The Court numbericed that the permit granted to STUs was neither utilized number operated and, hence, it was number open to the STUs to raise any objection regarding the grant of permit to the writ petitioner.
S. Radhakrishnan, J. Leave granted in all these special leave petitions.
Facts of the first two appeals.
