MOHINDER SINGH Vs. STATE TRANSPORT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT No. 2, the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab, vide advertisement published in the Motor Transport Gazette Weekly dated October 1,1988 invited applications for the grant of six regular stage carriage permits for plying three return trips daily on the Mohali-Kapurthala route. In response to the advertisement, the petitioner as well as the private respondents along with a large number of other applicants submitted their applications. The State Transport Commissioner, in the meeting held no 14/15th De-cember1988 considered the matter and vide order dated December 25, 1988 granted two permits each to the petitioner and two other operators namits Majha Malwa Transport Company and Darshan Singh and Kulwant Singh of Mohali. The petitioner and the Majha Malwa Transport Company were granted permits out of the quota reserved for the economically weaker Sections. It has been averred in the petition that the State Transport Commissioner while granting the permits in favour of the petitioner was primarily influenced by the fact that the applicant was the holder of a HTV driving licence. Aggrieved by the aforementioned order of the State Transport Commissioner various appeals were taken before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), which vide order dated September 25, 1991 (Annexure P-3) allowed the appeals and cancelled the permits granted to the petitioner and allotted the same to respondents 3 to 5. Annexure P-3 has been impugned before me by way of this writ petition.

(2.) WHILE considering the case inter-se of the petitioner with the respondents, the Tribunal found that the petitioner was a resident of Fazilka, which was a far off place and did not fall on the route and was not even one of the termini thereon and as such it was not possible for him to provide efficient service. With respect to respondent No.5, against whom only the present writ petition services as per the orders of this Court dated October 31, 1991 dismissing the petition qua the others, the Tribunal held that it was partnership firm consisting of three partners and all of them were scheduled castes besides belonging to the EWS category. It was also noted that the three partners held conductors licences, which meant that they had got experience in the operation of stage carriages and keeping in view the above aspects, respondent-5 was accordingly granted one route permit with one return trip daily out of the EWS quota.

(3.) AFTER hearing the counsel for the parties, I find no merit in this petition.