GANDHARA TRANSPORT COMPANY LIMITED Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By order dated October 23, 1956 the Regional Transport Authority. Patiala granted a permit to one Manohar Singh for plying a stage carriage on the Bhatinda-Khera (via Bajekhanna)-Jaitu-Kot Kapura route which was about 55 miles long. This route covered 35 miles of the Bhatinda-Kot-Kapura-Faridkot route for which the appellants M/s. Gandhara Transport Co. Ltd., held permits for playing their vehicles. In appeal against the order passed by the Regional Transport Authority, the appellants authority cancelled the permit in favour of Manohar Singh but the order of the Appellate Authority was set aside by the Minister in-charge of the Transport Department, Punjab State, in revision, and it was directed that a fresh temporary permit be granted to Manohar Singh for plying vehicles on the route for which he had been given a permit. The appellants then preferred a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Punjab, challenging the validity of the order passed by the Minister. Before this writ petition could be heard the period of the temporary permit expired and Monohar Singh applied to the Regional Transport Authority for renewal of the permit. The Regional Transport Authority issued on April 16, 1958 a notice inviting objections "regarding the further renewal of the permits for a period of three years on regular basis" in favour of Manohar Singh on the Bhatinda - Khera (via Bajekhanna) - Jaitu-Kot Kapura. The appellants and others filed objections to the "renewal of the permits for three years on regular basis." The Regional Transport Authority posted the objections for hearing on July 30, 1958. In the meantime the appellants applied to the High Court of Punjab for an interim order directing the Regional Transport Authority to stay pronouncement of the order on the application submitted by Manohar Singh till the disposal of their petition in the High Court. By order dated July 29, 1958 the High Court rejected the application observing that it was open to the appellants to move the Regional Transport Authority to postpone announcement of its order on the application of Mohohar Singh. The Regional Transport Authority declined to postpone announcement of its orders and on August 1, 1958 directed that a regular permit for three years be granted to Monohar Singh for the route notified. On August 7, 1958 the writ petition of the appellants was heard by the High Court and it was dismissed. The High Court observed that by the petition before it the issue of a temporary permit in favour of Mahonar Singh alone was challenged and the period for which the permit was issued having expired, it was not possible for the Court to grant any relief to the appellants, and the remedy of the appellants against the order of the Regional Transport Authority granting fresh permit lay before the Transport Authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act. The High Court observed "it is possible that the fact, that Manohar Singh was the holder of a temporary permit may have influenced the Regional Transport Authority in granting him a permanent permit, but it is open to the petitioner-Companies to agitate that matter before the Appellate and the Revisonal Authorities in proper proceedings and if no relief is given by the aforesaid authorities then this Court can be approached under Art. 226 of the constitution, if proper grounds exist for invoking its extraordinary powers under the aforesaid Article. . . . . . . . . The mere fact that respondent No. 4 (Mahonar Singh) held a temporary permit is not the only ground on which the permanent permit has to be granted to him. While granting the permanent permit the authorities have to follow the provisions of the statute and take into consideration the various matters that are provided for by the Motor Vehicles Act".

(2.) The appellants then appealed against the order of the Regional Transport Authority. The Provincial Transport Controller, Punjab, by his order dated May 29, 1959 quashed the order of the Regional Transport Authority, because in his view Manohar Singh had merely applied for renewal of his temporary permit, and that before the Regional Transport Authority there was no application for a regular permit and that the procedure adopted for granting a permit to Monohar Singh, did not conform to the provisions of the law and therefore the order renewing a temporary permit and making it a permit to ply to stage carriage for three years was invalid. The Provincial Transport Controller directed "that the question of allotment of permits may, if necessary, be taken up afresh after the requisite formalities" are observed. But the order of the Transport Controller was set aside by the Secretary, Transport Department, State of Punjab, in exercise of revisional authority under S. 64(h) of the Motor Vehicles Act as amended by Punjab Act 28 of 1948.

(3.) The appellants then moved the High Court of Punjab by a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution for quashing the order of the Secretary. Transport Department, on the pleas, inter alia, that the order passed by the Secretary was illegal because it ignored the "effect of the temporary permit which was the basis on which the permanent permit was granted" to Manohar Singh, that the Secretary had failed to note that the Regional Transport Authority had not invited applications from the public for granting permits for the route and had merely notified the application for renewal of the permit of the third respondent and that the Act contained no provision for renewal of a temporary permit into a regular permit. The High Court rejected this application. In the view of the High Court "every possible argument" was advanced before the Regional Transport Authority and was considered by that authority, and that for adjudicating on the merits of the claims for and against the grant of the permit the authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act were the proper authorities".