IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.16099 of 2009
Date of decision: 4th November, 2009
Naib Singh
... Petitioner
Versus
State Transport Appellate Tribunal Punjab and another
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
Present: Mr. P.S. Bawa, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Addl. AG Punjab
for the respondents.
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)
By this common order, (1) CWP No. 16097 of 2009 titled as
‘Mohan Singh v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal Punjab and another’;
(2) CWP No.16098 of 2009 titled as ‘Mohan Singh v. State Transport
Appellate Tribunal Punjab and another’; (3) CWP No.16099 of 2009 titled
as ‘Naib Singh v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal Punjab and another’;
(4) CWP No.16101 of 2009 titled as ‘Kulwant Singh v. State Transport
Appellate Tribunal Punjab and another’; (5) CWP No.16102 of 2009 titled
as ‘Amarjit Kaur v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal Punjab and
another’; (6) CWP No.16100 of 2009 titled as ‘Harpreet Kaur v. State
Transport Appellate Tribunal Punjab and another’ listed today in the
motion list, will be decided.
Similarly, nine matters, viz. (1) CWP No.16769 of 2009 titled
as ‘Kulwant Singh v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal Punjab and
another’; (2) CWP No. 16770 of 2009 titled as ‘Jaswinder Singh v. State
Transport Appellate Tribunal Punjab and another’; (3) CWP No. 16771 of
2009 titled as ‘Amarpreet Singh v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal
Punjab and another’; (4) CWP No. 16772 of 2009 titled as ‘Mohinderjit
Kaur v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal Punjab and another’; (5) CWP
Civil Writ Petition No.16099 of 2009 2
No.16773 of 2009 titled as ‘Parvinder Singh v. State Transport Appellate
Tribunal Punjab and another’; (6) CWP No. 16780 of 2009 titled as
‘Parvinder Singh v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal Punjab and
another’; (7) CWP No. 16781 of 2009 titled as ‘Jaswinder Singh v. State
Transport Appellate Tribunal Punjab and another’; (8) CWP No. 16782 of
2009 titled as ‘Naib Singh v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal Punjab
and another’; and (9) CWP No. 16783 of 2009 titled as ‘M/s Guru Sahai
Bus Service v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal Punjab and another’ are
listed today in the urgent list. Notice of motion issued in the same, has
been accepted by Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Additional Advocate General,
Punjab on the asking of the Court. Mr. Sharma is instructed by
Mr.Davinder Kumar, Superintendent, Regional Transport Authority,
Patiala.
It is not disputed that all these writ petitions can be decided by
a common order, as the facts are identical and only routes applied by the
petitioners are different. Therefore, for facility of reference, facts are being
gathered from Civil Writ Petition No.16099 of 2009 titled as ‘Naib Singh v.
State Transport Appellate Tribunal Punjab and another’.
Petitioner had applied for grant of Stage Carriage Permit to
operate Mini Bus with four return trips daily on Kharar-Pabhat via
Santemajra, Bhagomajra, Alipur, Nadiali, Safipur, Bakarpur, Rurki, Pabri,
Manoli route. The request of the petitioner was declined by the State
Transport Commissioner, Punjab on 31st October, 2007. Aggrieved
against the same, petitioner had filed an appeal. The appellate authority
dismissed the appeal by observing as under:
“6. There is no dispute about the fact that the route in
question, for which the mini bus permit has been sought by the
appellant, is the formulated one. On such a route a mini bus
permit can, of course, be granted on asking of the appellant
but the competent authority had rejected his application on the
ground that the Punjab Government had already published a
Civil Writ Petition No.16099 of 2009 3draft scheme known as ‘The Punjab Mini Bus Service Scheme
2007’ vide a notification No.S.O.34/C.A.59/1986/S.99/2007
dated 23.8.2007 under Section 99 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988. Under the said draft scheme which is in offing, the
operation of mini buses for plying as stage carriages is
required to be undertaken by the private operators and STUs
in a fixed ratio. It has been provided under Section 99(2) of the
Act that where a proposal is published under the above said
provision, then from the date of publication of such proposal,
no permit shall be granted to any person. In view of this, the
competent authority, in compliance of the provisions of
Section 99(2) of the Act, has rightly rejected the application.
The order has been passed after affording due opportunity of
hearing to the appellant. The order passed is well reasoned
and well considered. No interference is warranted in the same.
As such, the appeal is dismissed being without any merit.
Record of the RTA, if any, be returned.”One Gurdip Kaur, against the identical order passed, had
preferred Civil Writ Petition No. 4646 of 2009. The appellate authority, in
that case also, had declined the appeal by observing in verbatim what has
been reproduced above as Para 6. After dealing with the various
contentions, a Division Bench of this Court allowed the writ petition and
observed as under:
“For the reasons afore-mentioned this petition succeeds
and the same is allowed. The scheme is declared to have
lapsed. The order dated 25.11.2008 (P.6) passed by the
Tribunal is quashed. It is accordingly directed that the
respondent State or its official shall not treat this scheme as
operative. The State Transport Commissioner is directed to
consider the application of the petitioner for grant of mini bus
permit on Maur – Talwandi Sabo via Maur – Charat Singh –
Mari – Mansa Burj Seikhpura – Lellewala route in accordance
with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt
of copy of this order. The petitioner shall also be entitled to his
costs which is quantified as Rs.10,000/-.”
Civil Writ Petition No.16099 of 2009 4
Copy of order passed by Division Bench of this Court has
been annexed as Annexure P-5. Thereafter, one Rupinder Singh along
with other 22 persons, also preferred separate writ petitions. They were
listed before a Single Bench of this Court. The Single Bench also noticed
para 6 of the order passed by the appellate authority, which has been
reproduced above, and disposed of all the writ petitions in the same terms
as in case of Civil Writ Petition No. 4646 of 2009 titled as ‘Gurdip Kaur v.
State of Punjab and others’ decided on 16th July, 2009.
Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, appearing for the State of Punjab, on
instructions from Mr. Davinder Kumar, Superintendent, Regional Transport
Authority, Patiala, has very fairly stated that all these writ petitions are
covered by the ratio of law laid in Civil Writ Petition No. 4646 of 2009 titled
as ‘Gurdip Kaur v. State of Punjab and others‘ decided on 16th July, 2009.
Therefore, all these writ petitions are allowed in same terms
as in Civil Writ Petition No. 4646 of 2009 titled as ‘Gurdip Kaur v. State of
Punjab and others‘ decided on 16th July, 2009. Since the State has taken a
very fair stand, therefore, cost quantified in Civil Writ Petition No.4646 of
2009 is not imposed in these cases.
[KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA]
JUDGE
November 4, 2009
rps