LAWS(P&H)-1992-12-72

JULLUNDUR LUDHIANA TRANSPORT CO. Vs. STATE TRANSPORT

Decided On December 17, 1992
Jullundur Ludhiana Transport Co. Appellant
V/S
STATE TRANSPORT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN pursuance of a notice dated January 29, 1988, Annexure P-3, published by the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab, applications were invited for the grant of three regular stage carriage permits with three return trips on Patti-Pathankot via Taran, Amritsar, Batala and Gurdaspur route. As many as 27 operators applied for the grant of permits. The substance of the applications submitted by them was published in the Motor Transport Gazette, Annexure P-4, as required under Section 57(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 read with rule 4.6 of the Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940, for inviting objections/representations, if any. As per the policy decision of the State Government, a quota of 25% of the stage carriage permits was reserved for the Scheduled Castes domiciled in Punjab to be granted in any calendar year, having regard to the provisions of Section 47(1A)of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The petitioner, a Transport Company, also appplied for the grant of permits, against the reserved quota for Scheduled Castes. The Claim of the peitioner was rejected by the State Transport Commissioner on the ground that it had already been granted permit on Jullundur Hoshiarpur route on the basis of reservation and as such its case was not being considered for the grant of permits in question. Against the order of the State Transport Commissioner, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal'). The Tribunal also rejected the petitioner's Claim by observing as under:

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the Claim of the petitioner for grant of permit could not be rejected on the aforesaid ground. In support of this contention, learned Counsel placed reliance on Mohali Bus Service Regd. Jalanddhar v. State Trnasport Appellate Tribunal. Chandigarh . In the reported case, the Claim of the writ petitioner was also declined on the ground that "this applicant has already been granted permit on Goindwal-Rayya route on the basis of reservation for Scheduled Castes." After considering the matter, the learned Judge observed as follows:

(3.) LEARNED Advocate General, Punjab appearing for the respondents argued that it was not necessary to grant permit to the petitioner against the reserved category of Scheduled Castes as deficiency in that category could be made good at the end of the calendar year and even otherwise could be carried forward to the next year. The contention as urged by the learned Advocate General, Punjab cannot be accepted in view of the observations made by the Division Bench in M/s. Ambedkar Bus Service's case (supra). In the advertisement inviting applications for grant of regular stage carriage permits, it was made clear that 25% of the permits were reserved for the members of the Scheduled Castes category. This being so, consideration of reserved category permits could not be deferred to the end of the calendar year or carried forward to the next year especially having regard to the fact that the petitioner who belongs to the reserved category was available and was not otherwise found unsuitable. While concurring with the observation made in the two cases noticed above, suffice it to say, that the petitioner could not be refused the stage carriage permits on the ground that it had already been granted permits on some other route on the basis of reservation for Scheduled Castes.