HOSHIARPUR EXPRESS TRANSPORT COMPANY LTD , HOSHIARPUR Vs. STATE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH, ETC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 3rd of November, 1970 (Annexure 'B') of the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab, who granted six temporary stage carriage permits with three daily return trips on Amritsar-Anandpur Sahib via Jullundur-Hoshiarpur-Garhshanker and Nurpur Bedi route to the Punjab Roadways, Amritsar, a State owned undertaking. These permits were admittedly sanctioned under Section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 , as amended up-to-date and hereinafter called the Act. This provision of law allows temporary permits to be issued without following the procedure laid down in Section 57 for the grant of regular permits, the life of which is under the Statute fixed between three to five years. There is in force in the State of Punjab what is usually called 60 : 40 scheme, which was notified on 19th November, 1969 as per Government notification No. 12748-IHT-69 published in the Punjab Government Gazette (Transport Department) in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 68(D) of the Act. As a matter of fact, by this scheme, the previous scheme which permitted the passenger traffic in the State of Punjab to be shared between the State owned undertakings and private operators in the proportion of 50 : 50 stood modified and the share of the private operators reduced from 50% to 40%. A copy of the approved statutory scheme has been placed on the record as Annexure 'A' with the writ petition. To the scheme is appended a list of routes operation on which were to be undertaken immediately on or before 30th of June, 1969 by the Punjab Roadways. Clauses 4 and 5 of the scheme, on which counsel for the parties rely, may be reproduced hereunder in extenso for facility of reference :-

(2.) Mr. Mela Ram Sharma, Deputy Advocate-General, Punjab appearing for the State, strongly urges that the State Transport Commissioner only allotted permits in regard to the admitted quota of the State and applications for granting permits to private operations and settling their claims inter-se in respect of their quota have been published for inviting objections. The next contention of Mr. Sharma is that the private operators cannot operate between Amritsar and Jullundur which is a monopoly route meaning thereby that it is to be operated exclusively by the State owned undertakings and that notice to the private operates could not be of any significance or use.

(3.) Mr. Laxmi Grover, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, urges that no matter Amritsar-Jullundur is a monopoly route but when monopoly and non-monopoly routes are linked together to create a new route, the case will be covered by clause 4 and the petitioner or any other private operated may become entitled to ask for permits on that route. I express no opinion on this issue as it does not that directly arise in this case, but it is a point which could legitimately by urged by private operators before the State Transport Commissioner if an opportunity had been given to them to present their view point. Again, this officer has ex-parte determined the share of the State undertakings though, as conceded by Mr. Sharma, overall operation on all the routes in the State is to be taken into account to determine the entitlement of the State and the private operators for a particular route. If private operators had been afforded an opportunity, it could have been contended on their behalf, of whatever worth it might be that the number of permits, as proposed to be given to State-owned undertakings, was not in accordance with their share under the scheme if the shares were worked out by an overall assessment in whole of the State. The working of the scheme in the nature of things must involve several details which could reasonably and properly be settled in presence of all the parties likely to be affected by the proposed grant of permits. It must not be forgotten that the grant of permits has far-reaching consequences on transport business whether run by a State owned undertakings or a private operator particularly when the new route intended to be started overlaps in existing route operated by others who are likely to suffer financial loss as a result of the new services. Whenever a new permit is to be granted on the ground that it is share of an operator of a particular class as against another operator, a lis is automatically and inevitably created which needs to be adjudicated only after affording an opportunity to all the interested parties to be heard, more so when the authority to decide the issue is quasi-judicial required to make a judicial approach.