C.W.P No.11108 of 2008 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh.
C.W.P No.11108 of 2008
Date of Decision: 02.07.2008
Shere Punjab Bus Service
....Petitioner.
Versus
State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab etc.
....Respondents.
Coram:- Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.S. Khehar.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sham Sunder.
Present: Mr. A.M. Punchhi, Advocate
for the petitioner.
...
J.S. Khehar, J. (Oral).
The State Transport Commissioner, Punjab, invited
applications for the grant of six Regular Stage Carriage Permits to operate
three return trips on the Amritsar – Mansa route. More than three hundred
applicants responded. The petitioner i.e. Shere Punjab Bus Service (Regd.)
was also one of the applicants. It would be pertinent to mention, that the
petitioner is a small partnership firm, comprising of two partners, one a riot
victim and the other a matriculate, holding an HTV driving license. Both
the partners of the petitioner – firm being unemployed, were considered for
the release of the aforesaid six Regular Stage Carriage Permits from the
category of new entrants. On 2.12.1993, the State Transport Commissioner
granted the petitioner one permit to operate half return trip. The allotment of
C.W.P No.11108 of 2008 2
permit on the aforestated Amritsar – Mansa route was contested by
unsuccessful applicants in 13 appeals. The route permit granted to the
petitioner was also subject matter of challenge.
Despite the pendency of the appeals referred to in the foregoing
paragraph, the petitioner commenced to operate on the permit granted in its
favour. In the year 1999, the petitioner moved an application for increase in
trips from half to one. This request of the petitioner had been made in the
background of the fact, that the permit granted to the petitioner was not
financially viable. The request made by the petitioner for increase in trips,
was allowed by the Commissioner. It is, therefore, that the petitioner
commenced to operate on a permit, assigning him one trip on the Amritsar –
Mansa route.
Inspite of the best efforts made by the petitioner, the permit
granted to the petitioner remained financially uneconomical. It is, therefore,
that the petitioner submitted a joint application with one Libra Bus Service
Private Limited, Malerkotla, for transferring its bus permits with all rights to
the aforesaid Libra Bus Service Private Limited, in the year 2000. The
matter was considered and accepted by the Transport Commissioner on
2.8.2000.
In the meantime, the 13 appeals originally filed in respect of the
grant of six Regular Stage Carriage Permits on the Amritsar – Mansa route
were decided by the State Transport Appellate Authority on 13.9.2004.
The original order passed by the Commissioner, granting permits to the
petitioner and Bharat Transport Company (Regd.) (respondent No.3) was
set aside. For the reasons which have weighed with us in disposing of the
instant writ petition, it is not necessary to examine the basis of the
C.W.P No.11108 of 2008 3
determination rendered by the State Transport Appellate Authority in setting
aside the order of the State Transport Commissioner, allowing one permit to
the petitioner and one to respondent No.3. Suffice it to state, that qua these
two permits, the Appellate Authority required the State Transport
Commissioner to consider the matter afresh after affording an opportunity to
the petitioner and respondent No.3.
On 21.1.2005, the petitioner appeared before the State
Transport Commissioner, Punjab, and submitted written arguments claiming
the permit, which was originally assigned to him, yet again. The claim of
the petitioner was declined during the course of the aforesaid
reconsideration and in place of the petitioner, M/s. Shri Harkrishan
Transport Company (Regd.), Amritsar, was granted the permit which had
originally been assigned to the petitioner.
The State Transport Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal
preferred by respondent No.3 vide its order dated 13.7.2007. However, it
ordered that the permit granted to the petitioner should be cancelled since in
its opinion a fraud had been committed by the petitioner. In the view of the
Appellate Authority, the petitioner had played a fraud while obtaining the
permit as the petitioner did not disclose, that he had transferred the original
permit issued in its name to Libra Bus Service Private Limited, Malerkotla.
A direction was, accordingly, issued that the permit issued in the name of
the petitioner, be cancelled.
The first and the foremost contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioner was to the effect, that the petitioner had not committed any
fraud. In fact, it was asserted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that
the petitioner had disclosed the entire sequence of facts, including the fact
C.W.P No.11108 of 2008 4
that it had transferred the permit to Libra Bus Service Private Limited,
Malerkotla, and therefore, no fraud, whatsoever, had been committed by the
petitioner.
Having examined the pleadings of the instant writ petition, we
are satisfied, that the conclusion drawn by the State Transport Appellate
Tribunal to the effect, that the petitioner had committed a fraud, is wholly
misconceived. Therefore, in our view, the observations made in the
impugned order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal dated 13.7.2007
in respect of the petitioner, were clearly misconceived. We, therefore, set
aside the observations made against the petitioner recording, that he had
obtained the permit by fraud.
The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner
is to the effect, that there was no justification with the State Transport
Appellate Tribunal in cancelling the permit allotted to the petitioner. Since
the permits originally granted to the petitioner and respondent No.3 had
been set aside, according to the petitioner, he was entitled to a fresh
opportunity to canvass his claim for the same permit.
Having considered the second contention advanced by the
learned counsel for the petitioner, we find no merit therein. After the
petitioner was originally granted the permit in the year 1993, by his own
will and volition, the petitioner transferred the same in favour of Libra Bus
Service Private Limited, Malerkotla. Having transferred his permit
unilaterally to another transport agency, we are of the view, that the
petitioner deprived himself of the right to canvass for the same permit yet
again. In the aforesaid view of the matter, we uphold the determination
rendered by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in setting aside the
C.W.P No.11108 of 2008 5
permit originally assigned to the petitioner.
Disposed of accordingly.
( J.S. Khehar )
Judge.
( Sham Sunder )
Judge.
02.07.2008
sk.