Dismissed

Pepsu Road Transport Corporation , Patiala through Its Managing Director v. State Trasport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Sept 2013CWP/1425/1993

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Delhi disposed of a writ petition challenging the State Transport Appellate Tribunal's grant of stage carriage permits. The court held no modification was needed under the Motor Vehicles Act and directed the Corporation can apply for additional permits later.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with direction that Corporation must apply for additional permits separately and Tribunal order cannot be assailed.

Pepsu Road Transport Corporation , Patiala… — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

-1-

¶2

C.W.P. No.1425 of 1993

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

C.W.P. No.1425 of 1993 Date of Decision. .09.2013

¶5

Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala

¶6

.......Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab and others......Respondents

¶9

Present: Mr. Anupam Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Baldev Kapoor, Advocate for respondent Nos.4 and 5.

¶11

Mr. Ranbir Singh Pathania, DAG, Punjab.

¶12

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

¶13

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No

¶14

To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No

¶15

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No

¶16

-.-

¶17

K. KANNAN J.

¶18

The writ petition challenges the order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal described as the 1^st respondent. The order impugned was in relation to certain stage carriage permits. The dispute was with reference to grant of permit from Jallandhar to Amritsar which was claimed by the petitioner Corporation as a monopoly portion of Punjab Roadways and hence the permit could not be issued to any of the private respondents in the manner it has done. The petitioner also has other objections that the 1^st respondent has granted more number of permits than what was originally invited from the transporters. Applications had been called only for grant of four regular permits but the Tribunal while disposing of the appeals has allowed for more permits

¶19

Kamboj Pankaj Kumar 2013.09.16 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶20

C.W.P. No.1425 of 1993

¶21

-2-

¶22

to be issued.

¶23

I do not think any modification is necessary at this stage in view of the liberal policy of issuance of permits under Sections 99 and 100 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Even an objection taken by the Corporation that it was a monopoly route does not appear to be correct, for the notification declaring to be monopoly route was itself issued subsequent to the date when the applications were invited for grant of permits. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent pointed out to me a notification issued by the Government of Punjab on 09.08.1990 when proposals regarding a scheme for the purpose of providing an efficient road transport service was issued and after hearing objections, a notification was issued setting out 09.08.1990 as the appointed day. The provision for monopoly route was also introduced with a specific reference that all operations existing or future on monopoly routes shall exclusively be undertaken by the State Transport Undertakings. Learned counsel contended that the issue was whether existing permits on specified routes declared as monopoly routes on the date of notification would also be affected by this notification. The Government came with another notification on 21.10.1997 substituting clause (4) already introduced through the notification on 09.08.1990 with the following clause:-

¶24

“4. All future operations on monopoly routes shall be operated by the State Transport Undertakings;

¶25

Provided that a private operator may be allowed to operate on a portion of 20 per cent of the monopoly route or upto the distance of 15 kms of the said route whichever is less, where it is necessary or is in public interest to do so.”

¶26

The contention, therefore, is that the monopoly routes were

¶27

¶28

Kamboj Pankaj Kumar 2013.09.16 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶29

-3-

¶30

C.W.P. No.1425 of 1993

¶31

to be applied only for all future operations and the private respondents were persons who were operating in the routes prior thereto and therefore, there was no bar against issuance of permits in respect of the route from Jallandhar to Amritsar.

¶32

I accept the plea and hold that, under the circumstances, there is no scope for assailing the order passed by the Tribunal. It shall always be open to the Corporation to apply for additional permit if it has the necessary resources and show its own to merit for a favourable consideration. If such a plea is made by the Corporation, it shall be considered without in any way being fettered by the order of the Tribunal disallowing permits to the Corporation, in the light of the new transport policy and in the light of the provisions of the Act of 1988.

¶33

The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.

¶34

(K. KANNAN) JUDGE

¶35

September , 2013 Pankaj*

¶36

Kamboj Pankaj Kumar 2013.09.16 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Pepsu Road Transport Corporation , Patiala through Its Managing Director v. State Trasport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pepsu Road Transport Corporation , Patiala through Its Managing Director v. State Trasport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Bala Ji Associates Vs Kurukshetra Coop. Housing Society and Ors.

(O&M) Darshani Devi and Anr. Vs Jai Singh and Ors.

Kali Ram Vs the State of Hry and Others

Anjali Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Bikram Singh Vs Satish Kumar and Ors.

Surjit Singh Vs Mukhtiar Singh etc.