Dismissed

Amloh Bus Service (Regd) v. Th. State Transp. Apellate Tribunal Pb. and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Nov 2011CWP/6157/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging orders that denied a bus service an increase in daily trips on a specific route. The Court held that the authorities acted lawfully, noting that prior surveys showed sufficient services existed and no public interest would be served by adding more trips. The refusal was upheld as non-discriminatory and devoid of illegality.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed, and the impugned orders of the State Transport Commissioner and the State Transport Appellate Tribunal were maintained.

Amloh Bus Service (Regd) Vs Th… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

C.W.P.No.6157 of 2011 -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

C.W.P.No.6157 of 2011 Date of Decision:-4.11.2011

¶4

Amloh Bus Service (Regd.) Gobindgarh ...Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab & Ors. ...Respondents

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

¶8

Present:Mr.P.K.Mutneja, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶9

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J . (Oral)

¶10

The compendium of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that petitioner M/s Amloh Bus Service (Regd.) (for brevity “petitioner-bus-service), Gobindgarh, applied for the increase in daily trips from one to three on Jalandhar-Patiala-Sirhind route via Ludhiana. Its application was considered in the meeting of State Transport Commissioner (respondent No.2) held on 11.12.2007 and its request was declined, by virtue of impugned order dated 27.12.2007 (Annexure P3).

¶11

Aggrieved by the order (Annexure P3), the petitioner filed the appeal (Annexure P4) under section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”), which was dismissed as well, by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh (respondent No.1), by means of impugned order dated 15.11.2010 (Annexure P12).

¶12

The petitioner-bus service still did not feel satisfied and preferred the present writ petition, challenging the impugned orders (Annexures P3 and P12), invoking the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶13

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after deep consideration over the entire

¶14

C.W.P.No.6157 of 2011 -2-

¶15

matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant writ petition.

¶16

Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that since the respondents have increased the trips/timings of other bus operators, by way of orders (Annexures P5 to P7), so, the impugned orders are discriminatory and are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well.

¶17

What cannot possibly be disputed here is that the Government of Punjab has framed the Transport Service Scheme, inter-alia containing the terms and conditions for issuance of route permits described therein, including clause (7A), which reads as under:-

¶18

“(7-A) While granting permits for operations on routes, linking one village with another village without any city or a town or municipality, in between the aforesaid two villages, or a route linking a village with the block Headquarters or a municipality or town or Mandi or City, or for service within the city, allowed on the basis of passengers road transport needs as assessed by the State Transport Commissioners, Punjab from time to time provided that :-

¶19

(a) the total length of each such route does not exceed 25 kilometers and the total operation per bus, does not exceed 250 kilometer per day.

¶20

(b) not more than half of the total routes length runs across a National Highways or State Highways.

¶21

(c) at least one of the terminal of the route shall be a village and shall not include more than one municipality except on a local route falling within the municipal limits of a town, municipality or city whereon both the starting and the terminating points may be the same or may fall within the same town, municipality or city as the case may be; and

¶22

(d) it shall be ensured that the interest of the State Transport Undertakings are not affected adversely on such routes.”

¶23

Sequelly, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case R.Obliswami Naidu v. The Additional State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras and others 1969 (1) S.C.C. 733, has inter-alia, observed that before granting a stage carriage permit, two independent steps have to be taken. Firstly, there should be a determination by the RTA under section 47(3) of the number of stage carriages, for which, the stage

¶24

C.W.P.No.6157 of 2011 -3-

¶25

carriage permits may be granted on that route, thereafter, the application should be entertained and the RTA is not competent to grant stage carriage permit for more carriages under section 47(3) of the Act.

¶26

In this manner, the State transport authorities are legally required to fix the particular number of stage carriage route permits and increase or decrease therein, after taking into consideration the terms and conditions of the transport policy and other relatable factors and not otherwise. The Transport authorities are not legally obliged to increase the number of trips/timings of the permits of the petitioner-bus service in a routine manner, without any basis.

¶27

Likewise, the mere fact that the respondents have increased the trips/timings of entirely other different routes, namely, Jalandhar to Ludhiana via Phagwara, Phillaur (Annexure P5), Ludhiana-Patiala via Khanna, Sirhind (Annexure P6) and Patiala-Patti via Ludhiana, Makhu, Harike via Moga, (Annexure P7), ipso facto, is not a ground to increase the trips/timings of the indicated routes, as claimed by the petitioner. Similarly, no implicit reliance can be placed on the self contradictory survey report (Annexure P1). In clause 10 of survey report, it has been mentioned that at present, sufficient buses are operating on the whole of the routes in question, but at the same time, it was depicted therein that if the increase in the trip is allowed to the petitioner-bus service, then it will also help the illegal operation on the routes in dispute. How much is the increase of passengers and in what manner, the Secretary of Regional Transport Authority reached the conclusion (without any basis) that if increase in the trip is allowed, then it would better serve the traveling public, remains an unfolded mystery in this connection.

¶28

Moreover, having considered the relevant factors, the State Transport Commissioner has rightly rejected the claim of petitioner, vide impugned order (Annexure P3), the operative part of which is as under:-

¶29

“I have carefully gone through the arguments advanced by the applicant bus service as well as the contentions raised by representatives of

¶30

C.W.P.No.6157 of 2011 -4-

¶31

State Transport Undertakings and relevant record of the case. I find that sufficient bus services are already available on this route. During the course of arguments, it transpired that more than one thousand services are already in operation on Jalandhar-Ludhiana a portion of 66 Km and more than 520 services are available on Ludhiana-Khanna-Sirhind route portion both in shuttle and overlapping manner. The survey officer has also reported that there is no scope for addition of more services on this route and the daily needs of the commuters is being catered to properly. It has also been reported by surveying officer that addition of more services on this route would serve no public interest. He has not recommended the request of applicant but service. Survey report is of paramount consideration in such cases. Moreover, the contentions raised by the State Transport Undertakings are in the right context as the mileage on the National Highway has to be determined per provisions contained in Transport Scheme notified by the Govt. on 9.8.1990 and amended on 21.10.1997. During the course of arguments it further transpired that the route is 163 Km in length out of which 115 Km falls on National Highway and in case the request is allowed it will create imbalance of ratio which is to be maintained in fixed ratio. The request of the bus service has otherwise not been found to be in public interest by the surveying officer. The contentions raised by the State Transport Undertaking are upheld as they contain substance worth consideration. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to accept the application of the applicant bus service for increase in return trips on Jalandhar-Patiala via Ludhiana, Sirhind route from one to three daily on the grounds mentioned above. The application deserves to be refused.

¶32

In view of the foregoing discussion, I, R.Venkat Ratham, IAS, State Transport Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh in exercise of the powers conferred upon me by the Punjab Government, hereby reject the above said application of the applicant bus service for the grant of increase in trips on Jalandhar-Patiala via Ludhiana-Sirhind route against permit Nos.74647/Reg.Stage/07 above said permits on the grounds mentioned above.”

¶33

Not only that, the order (Annexure P3) was rightly upheld by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, by virtue of impugned order dated 15.11.2010 (Annexure P12).

¶34

At the same time, the learned counsel for the petitioner did not point out any legal violation and material, much less cogent, to contend as to how and in

¶35

C.W.P.No.6157 of 2011 -5-

¶36

what manner, the impugned orders (Annexures P3 & P12) are illegal and would invite any interference in this relevant behalf.

¶37

Meaning thereby, the Transport authority/Appellate Tribunal have recorded the cogent grounds in this relevant connection. Such orders, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, while exercising the limited jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, unless and until, the same are illegal and perverse. Since no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, so, the impugned orders (Annexures P3 & P12) deserve to be and are hereby maintained, in the obtaining circumstances of the case.

¶38

No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the counsel for the petitioner.

¶39

In the light of aforementioned reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed as such.

¶40

( Mehinder Singh Sullar ) 4.11.2011 Judge AS

Amloh Bus Service (Regd) v. Th. State Transp. Apellate Tribunal Pb. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amloh Bus Service (Regd) v. Th. State Transp. Apellate Tribunal Pb. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Piara Singh and Ors. Vs K.S. Bhoria and Ors.

Haryana St.Minor Irrig.& T/Well Corpn. Ltd. Vs Presiding Officer Labour Court Cum Industrial Tribunal Hissar & Anr.

Sher Singh and Anr. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Rakesh Sharma Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Hardeep Singh and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others

Sarabjeet Kaur Vs State of Punjab & Ors.