CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION Vs. AMBALA BUS SYNDICATE PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred impugning the judgment dated 29.6.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge vide which order dated 30.3.2009 passed by the Secretary Transport-cum-Chairman, State Transport Authority, U.T., Chandigarh, refusing to counter-sign the permits issued by the Regional Transport Authority, Patiala, in favour of the Respondent-Ambala Bus Syndicate (P) Ltd., Ropar (hereinafter referred to as the Company) was set aside and a direction was issued to it to consider within eight weeks the claim of the Company for counter-signatures in accordance with law and the Company was permitted to ply their non-air conditioned buses after securing the renewal of permits in the manner contemplated by law.

(2.) Counsel for the Appellant submits that the learned Single Judge has misread Section 74 of the Punjab Reorganization Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as Reorganization Act) which provides for a temporary arrangement for validation of a permit granted by the State or a Regional Transport Authority in the existing State of Punjab on reorganization immediately before the appointed day i.e. 1.11.1966 so as to continue to be valid and effective in that area subject to the provisions of the Act as for the time being in force in that area and the counter-signing of such permit shall not be necessary for the purpose of validating it for use in such area notwithstanding anything contained in Section 63 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short '1939 Act). Counsel while admitting that original permits in question were issued between the years 1954-1966 by the then State Authorities of the composite State of Punjab contends that this section only provides for validation of the permits for the unexpired period of the said permit without being countersigned for the purpose of validating it for use. Even if the provisions of Section 74 of the Reorganization Act are stretched to the maximum limit of period of validity of a permit, the permits issued in the year 1966 would be valid only up to 1971 as according to the 1939 Act, the maximum life of a permit is five years without renewal. As per the provisions of Section 66 of the 1939 Act, after 1971 the permits even after renewal by the Punjab State Authorities, were required to be counter-signed by the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority of Union Territory of Chandigarh which has never been done. The operation of the buses of the Respondent-Company were, therefore, illegal after 1.11.1971.

(3.) He further contends that even as per the Reciprocal Agreement dated 04.06.2008, which is between the Union Territory of Chandigarh and the State of Punjab under Section 88(5) of the 1988 Act, the permission for operation of stage carriage permits issued prior to 1966 were to be counter-signed in the case of non-air conditioned buses of the private operators only after verification of original permits provided they fell within the Scheme and in terms of Section 74 of the Reorganization Act and under the 1988 Act. As per the provisions of the 1988 Act, he contends that provisions of Chapter VI of the Act under which the Scheme has been framed has an over-riding effect on the provisions of Chapter v. of the 1988 Act or in any other law for the time being in force or any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law. The Scheme framed under Section 99 of the 1988 Act once published is law, it operates against everyone unless it is modified or cancelled by the State. He submits that even if there is a provision providing for the counter-signatures of the permits issued prior to the coming into force of the Reorganization Act, the same has to be in consonance with the 1988 Act and the Scheme framed there under.