PATIALA BUS PVT Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of Civil Writs Nos. 708, 791, 792, 893, 900, 907, 908, 1022, 1224, 1225 and 1226 of 1972. Since in all these writ petitions the scheme finally approved by the State Government under Section 68-D of the motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinaf er referred to as the Act), Annex. 'b' with this wtpetition, is being impugned on the same and similar grounds, therefore, all these writ petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) THE facts and the grounds as mentioned in Civil Writ No. 708 of 1972, may only be mentioned because the facts and ground of challenge in all these writ petitions are the same. All the petitioners are existing transport operators. The Patiala Bus (Sirhind) Private Limited, Sirhind, petitioner in Civil Writ No. 708 of 1972, with its head quarters at Sirhind, is holding State Carriage permits issued by the State transport Commissioner Punjab on various routes. This Company was also operating on Ludhiana Ambala Cantt. and Mansa-Sirsa routes. It may be pointed out that before the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 was passed, Patiala and East punjab States Union was a 'b' Class State. The said State merged with the State of punjab on 1-11-1956 in view of the provisions of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. Subsequently, by the passing of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, which became effective from 1-11-1966, out of the State of Punjab, the State of Haryana was carved out and Ambala Cantt. which is a terminus of one of the routes in question, that is, Ludhiana Ambala Cantt. route, fell in the State of Haryana. Thus this route became the inter-State route. In the area, which comprised of the erstwhile State of Punjab before the merger of Pepsu Area, a Scheme (hereinafter referred to as the Punjab Scheme) for nationalisation of the transport routes under chapter IV-A of the Act, was in operation and the said Punjab Scheme was called the 50-50 Scheme. This Scheme was evolved for a limited period and after the expiry of the period of that Scheme, another Scheme was framed by the State government under Section 68-D of the Act and published in the Government gazette on 19-11-1969 which is being called 60-40 Scheme. This Scheme is now in operation in the area of the erstwhile Punjab State now remnant in Punjab after the States Reorganisation Act of 1956 and a copy of this Scheme is attached as annexure 'a' with this writ petition. According to this Scheme, 60 per cent of the overall operations, that were being undertaken on or immediately before 30-61969 on the routes specified in the Scheme itself, were to be undertaken by the punjab Roadways and the remaining mileage was to be operated by the existing private operators to the extent of 30 per cent and the new entrants to the extent of 10 per cent. It has been provided in the Scheme that the traffic on the then existing inter-State routes shall be shared between the State Undertaking and the existing private operators in the same ratio, that is, 60-40 but the new inter-State routes and increase on the existing inter-State routes will exclusively be operated by the State Undertaking. As I have already pointed out, this scheme covers the area of the erstwhile State of Punjab before the merger of Pepsu and Punjab and the claims of the private operators of this area have been kept in view. In view of the above mentioned provisions of the Punjab Scheme, the private operators operating on the Ludhiana Ambala Cantt. route are getting their share of 40 per cent, this route being an existing inter-State route.

(3.) ANOTHER scheme under Chapter IV-A of the Act was framed by the Pepsu Road transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Pepsu Scheme) which scheme has been published on 10-2-1972 and a copy of the same is attached as annexure 'b' with this writ petition. In this Pepsu Scheme, which has been finally approved by the State Government under Section 68-D of the Act, after hearing claims and objections filed by the persons under Section 68-C of the Act, a provision has been made that 60 per cent of the routes will be undertaken by the pepsu Road Transport Corporation (the State Undertaking) and 40 per cent of the routes by the private operators. As regards the existing and future inter-State routes, a provision has been made that the said routes shall be operated by the pepsu Road Transport Corporation alone and the private operators will not be entitled to 40 per cent share on the inter-State routes. In this respect, this provision of the Pepsu Scheme is not in consonance with the provisions of the punjab Scheme inasmuch as in the Punjab Scheme, the existing inter-State routes have to be shared in the ration of 60-40 both by the State Undertaking and the private operators; whereas in the Pepsu Scheme the State Undertaking alone has the right to run buses on the inter-State routes. The Patiala Bus (Sirhind) Private limited, Sirhind and M/s. Preet Bus Service are the two private transport operators with their headquarters in the area of the erstwhile Pepsu State and thus are admittedly governed by the Pepsu Scheme. It is alleged that in the Pepsu scheme, all inter-State routes have to be run by the State Undertaking, therefore, the permits on Ludhiana-Ambala Cantt. route which they had obtained under the authority of the Regional Transport Authority, Patiala, which Authority had the jurisdiction over the area which constituted the erstwhile State of Pepsu have not been renewed by the State Transport Commissioner, who, under the Act is the permit granting Authority. It is alleged that in view of the provisions of the Punjab scheme, the Punjab private operators are operating their buses on Ludhiana ambala Cantt. inter-State route whereas the Pepsu private operators have been denied this right and it is, therefore, alleged that this is a discrimination without any reasonable classification and thus the Pepsu Scheme, Annexure 'b' prepared by the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and as finally approved by the State government is illegal and ultra vires of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and sections 68-C and 68-D of the Act.