JUDGMENT
G.S. Singhvi, J.
1. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the criteria formulated by the respondents for allotment of permits to the private Transport Co-operative Societies in pursuance of the Scheme Annexure P.4, notified in the Haryana Gazette No.S.O.79/C.A.59/88/S.100/98 dated 18.8.1998.
2. A perusal of the record reveals that in exercise of its power under Section 99 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), the State Government published draft scheme vide notification dated 17.4.1998 for the purpose of providing co-ordinate passenger road transport service. It was clearly stipulated in the draft scheme that the routes mentioned therein will be operated by the State Transport Undertaking, namely, Haryana Roadways to the complete exclusion of other persons except the unemployed youths through their private Co-operative Transport Societies. Thirty days after the publication of the draft scheme vide notification dated 18.6.1998 issued under Section 100(3) of the Act. The petitioner applied for grant of permit on route No.623. Vide letter Annexure P.5 dated 10.12.1998, its President was informed by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Rohtak that the route permits will be allotted after holding an interview as per the provisions of Section 71(3)(d) of the Act. The petitioner has challenged this decision by contending that the criteria enumerated in Section 7(3) cannot be applied for grant of permit in pursuance of the scheme notified under Sections 99 and 100 of the Act. It has averred that the criteria of financial stability is contrary to the object of the scheme and, therefore, the respondents should be restrained from granting permit by making selection on the basis of the criteria.
3. The respondents have questioned the maintainability of the writ petition by contending that the petitioner can avail alternative remedy by filing appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. On merits, they have averred that for allotment of 699 stage carriage permits oh the routes notified in the scheme, a total number of 25739 applications were received and, therefore, keeping in view the provision contained in Clause 16 of the scheme, it was decided to constitute committee for interviewing the applicants. For this purpose, notice Annexure P.5 was issued to the petitioner. Along with the written statement, the respondents have placed on record copy of the memo dated 23.11.1998 (Annexure R.2) written by the Chairman, state Transport Authority, Haryana to the Secretaries, Regional Transport Authorities conveying them the government’s decision that the permit will be granted to eligible candidates on the recommendations of the committee consisting of Secretary, Regional Transport Authority of the concerned region, a representative of the District Administration and an officer of the Transport Department.
4. The first contention urged by the Shri Narender Hooda is that the decision of the respondents to interview the candidates must be declared as arbitrary and ultra vires to the provisions of the Act because the scheme does not envisage interview of the applicants for the purpose of grant of permit. His second contention is that the criteria of financial stability is wholly arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable and by applying that criteria, the petitioner cannot be deprived of its legitimate right to be granted permit in accordance with the scheme. He submitted that the very purpose of granting permit to the private Transport Co-operative societies formed by unemployed youths will be defeated if the financial stability is treated as determinative of the applicant’s right to get the permit. Still further, he argued that the provisions of Section 71(3)(d) of the Act cannot be invoked by the respondents for deciding the application submitted by the petitioner because the government has not fixed the number of permits which could be awarded in accordance with the scheme.
5. We have thoughtfully considered the respective submissions.
A perusal of the documents annexed with the writ petition shows that along with notification dated 17.4.1998 issued for publication of the draft scheme, a booklet containing the details of the scheme was also published. Clauses 3, 8(a) and 16 of the booklet, which have bearing on the decision of this case, are extracted below :
“3. ROUTES
The routes under the scheme are spread all over Haryana in different districts as annexed. There are 6 Regions in Haryana. Their Headquarters and districts are given below:
Sr.No. Head Quarter District
_________________________________________________________________________
1. Ambala 1. Ambala 2. Panchkula
3. Kurukshetra 4. Yamuna Nagar
2. Karnal 1. Karnal 2. Panipat
3. Kaithal
3. Rohtak 1. Rohtak 2. Sonepat
3. Jhajjar 4. Jind
4. Faridabad 1. Faridabad 2. Gurgaon
5. Rewari 1. Rewari 2. Mohendergarh
6. Hisar 1. Hisar 2. Fatehabad
3. Sirsa 4. Bhiwani.
8. SPECIFICATION OF PROPOSED STAGE CARRIAGES
(a) Age of Vehicle
The bus shall not be more than one year old as on 1.7.1998 and can ply as stage carriage in Haryana upto eight years from the date of first registration. After eight years, it shall be replaced by another vehicle, not more than one year old. the replacement will be of a higher model.
16. MANNER REGARDING ALLOTMENT OF PERMITS.
When the number of eligible applicants exceeds the number of permits, the permit will be granted to the eligible applicants in the manner to be decided by the State Transport Authority.”
The details of the 418 routes and number of permits proposed to be offered for allotment to private Transport Co-operative Societies have been incorporated on pages 11 to 29 of the booklet. The application form is printed on pages 30 to 31.
6. A bare reading of Clause 16 of the scheme shows that the government had anticipated receipt of large number of applications for grant of permits and, therefore, it deemed it appropriate to confer discretion upon the State Transport Authority to devise appropriate criteria for grant of permit to the eligible applicants. This, in our considered view, can neither be regarded as arbitrary and unreasonable nor it can be termed as abdication of the authority of the government in favour of the State Transport Authority. In fact, what the State Government has done by incorporating Clause 16 is to make a provision for short-listing of the applications received for grant of permits on the notified routes. The conferment of power upon the State Transport Authority to devise the manner for dealing with large number of applications cannot be termed as an abdication of its authority by the State government about the fundamentals of the scheme. Rather, it must be regarded as a mechanism evolved with a view to effectively implement the scheme formulated for providing efficient transport service and simultaneously implementation of the Directive Principle of the State Policy of providing source of a vocation to the unemployed youth. We, therefore, do not find any illegality in the government’s decision to confer power upon the State Transport Authority to devise appropriate criteria for short-listing.
7. We are further of the opinion that the petitioner cannot seek invalidation of the criteria devised by the State Transport Authority vide Annexure R.2 Dated 23.11.1998 because it has neither challenged Clause 16 of the booklet which forms part of the draft scheme notified by the government nor any prayer has been made for quashing of the scheme on the ground that conferment of power upon the State Transpor Authority to lay down the manner in which the applications are to be dealt with amounts to delegation of the essential functions of the State Government.
8. for the purpose of deciding whether or not the criteria evolved by the State Transport Authority is ultra vires to the provisions of the Act, it will be useful to refer to the memo dated 23.11.1998 (Annexure R.2) issued by the Chairman, State Transport Authority, the relevant portion of which is extracted below:
“You are aware that in response to the public notice published on 13.4.1998 and 14.4.1998 in various newspapers a large number of applications for allotment of 699 permits on 418 routes up to the length of 125 Kms. have been received. The government has decided that a committee comprising the following would hold interview for allotment of permits to eligible applicant after the following due procedure under the Act:-
1. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority concerned of the region for his territorial jurisdiction. : Chairman
2. A representative of District Administration (to be nominated by the Deputy Commissioner). : Member
3. An officer of the Transport Department (to be nominated by the Government in Transport Department).: Member
In order to allot the permit, public notices have also been given in the press and a copy of which is enclosed for your perusal.
Necessary order with regard to constitution of the committee is being sent to you separately. In view of the above, you are requested to take further necessary steps to make allotment of permits after holding interviews and following criteria as laid down under Section 71(3)(d) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. besides above, provisions enumerated under Section 80(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 may also be kept in view and adhered to strictly.
Besides above, the following steps may also be taken:
(a) That each co-op. Transport Society who has applied for allotment of a permit may be informed of the aforesaid decision of the Government individually by way of registered post. Similarly, the letter of interview may also be set through registered post.
(b) All those applications received within the prescribed time in the various offices of the Secretaries, RTAs may be treated as eligible. Any application belonging to other RTA found deposited in other RTAs may be sent to the concerned RTA for their consideration. Thus, no application may be rejected merely on the ground that the application has been deposited with other RTAs whereas the route applied falls in other RTA. The route meant for reserved categories are to be filled up amongst the reserved categories and in case no application is found for that very reserved category that vacancy should not be given to any other category of society of general category. In such circumstances, the vacancy may be treated as vacant which will be notified again for allotment of permits as per decision taken by the Government. Thus, any application if found in contravention of this decision may be rejected summarily.
(c) That is case the Chairman or any other member of the committee constituted for the purposes of making allotment is found to be a relative of any member of the society, he will cease to be Chairman or member of the committee and would request the D.C. of the District concerned or the STA for the change of Chairman or member, as the case may be, for the purposes of making allotment of permits.”
A bare reading of the above extracted criteria shows that the committees constituted by the State Government were asked to interview the candidates keeping in view the guidelines contained in Section 71(3)(d) of the Act. In other words, the committees were to keep in view the guidelines contained in Section 71(3)(f) of the Act while making recommendations for grant of permit on the particular route. The petitioner cannot take any exception to the framing of a criteria by incorporating the factors enumerated in Section 71(3)(d) nor can it be said that the government intends to grant permit under Section 71(3)(d) because a reference to that Section has been made in that criteria. Thus, we do not find any merit in the contention of the learned counsel that the criteria devised by the State Transport Authority should; be declared ultra vires to the provisions of the Act. Equally merit-less is his submission that the provisions of Section
71(3)(d) could not have been invoked by the State Transport Authority for grant of permit in pursuance of the scheme framed under Section 100 of the Act. In our considered view, the respondents had the discretion to lay down the appropriate criteria for short-listing and there is nothing wrong in adopting the guidelines prescribed by Section 71(3)(d) for that purpose.
9. The argument of the learned counsel that the criteria of financial stability is unreasonable and unconscionable also lacks substance. In our opinion, the financial ability of the applicant is an extremely relevant consideration for grant of permit. The examination of this aspect is quite consistent with the object of providing efficient transport service to the people. The draft scheme prescribes the age of the vehicle to be employed by the permit holder, a financially weak applicant may, in all probability, not be able to provide the vehicle of a particular age resulting in frustration of the purpose with which the scheme has been framed. Therefore, no illegality can be attributed to the decision taken by the respondents to prescribe financial capacity as one of the factors to be considered by the committee while making recommendation for grant of permit. Therefore, if the committee finds that the applicant does not have enough resources to purchase the vehicle of a particular age, it will be fully justified in refusing to grant permit to such applicant.
No other point has been argued.
For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is dismissed.