PARVEEN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present petition is to the notification dated 3.5.2011, whereby approved scheme for road transport service in the State of Haryana, was notified.

(2.) Prior to the notification of the approved scheme, a draft policy was notified seeking objections from the interested persons. The background for framing/revising the instant policy, as mentioned in the draft policy, was a judgment of this court, increase in the population in the State, setting up of more educational institutions and inability of the State Transport to cope with the growth in the passengers traffic. To supplement the gap, permits were proposed to be granted to persons as per the eligibility criteria laid down in the policy. Prior to 1993, ever since the passenger transport business was nationalised in the State of Haryana, state transport buses were plying on all the routes. In 1993, to supplement the gap, permits were granted to certain private operators. The number wa increased by framing a new policy in the year 2001. However, while framing the present policy, number of permits were increased further considerably, i.e., more than double. To the draft policy notified by the State, certain persons raised objections including petitioner No. 1. However, as is evident from the paper book, no objections were filed by petitioner No. 2, i.e., Eco Friendly Tours & Travels Ltd. Though objections were filed by Anand Moudgil (Annexure-P2), but claiming himself to be the proprietor of Ansh Bus Service, Inter-City Bus Service and Asian Express Bus Service. However, as is evident from the record, he filed application for grant of permit in March, 2009.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that advertisement of draft policy, which was published in the newspaper for inviting objections was lacking in material particulars. Though draft policy, as was notified in the gazette, was running into 400 pages, but only some portion was printed in the newspaper, which did not give effective opportunity to the persons who were seeking to raise objections against that. The provisions of Section 71 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provide for basic objects for framing of any such policy. However, none of them was considered while framing the policy. As to how the general public will be benefitted is not borne out from the terms thereof. The ideal situation would be to leave everything open and let the market forces decide as to what should be the appropriate fare and who is the best service provider. Limited release of permits in favour of some persons will not bring efficiency in the system. Any one desirous of operating a bus on a route should be granted the permit. Preferential treatment is sought to be given to certain persons, which is violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Details of the existing routes and the number of routes were not provided in the draft policy to enable the petitioners and other similarly situated persons to effectively object to the terms of the policy and work out their economics as anyone would apply for grant of permit considering its viability and profitability.