LAXMI BUS SERVICE Vs. STATE TRANSPORTAPPELLATE TRIBUNALPUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner M/s. Laxmi Bus Service is aggrieved against the appellate order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh, whereby the appeal of the 3rd respondent M/s. Dhuri Bus Service was allowed having the effect of retrieving one stage carriage permit with one return trip from the petitioner, and being granted to the said respondent, by upsetting the orders of the State Transport Commissioner, who had in the first instance, granted one stage carriage with two return trips to the petitioner.

(2.) The challenge of the petitioner is mainly based on the question of limitation. The question of limitation being a question of jurisdiction at the stage of the initial cause, has been invoked by the petitioner to oust the claim of respondent No. 3. It is averred that vide Notice Annexure P-1, the R. T. A. had in order to meet an immediate demand, invited applications for the grant of three temporary permits with one daily return trip by 3lst May, 1979. Undisputably, the petitioner applied for the purpose within time but respondent No. 3 made an application beyond time. Marshalling the claim of the petitioner vis-a-vis other operators, one temporary permit with the two return trips was granted by the R. T. A. to the petitioner vide Order Annexure P-2. The appeal of respondent No. 3 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal was allowed vide Order Annexure P-3 on l9th Jan., 1983, at a stage when the temporary route permit stood exhausted by efflux of time. Suggestedly, the petitioner was working on the basis of another order. But still, the order of the R. T. A. was upset mainly on the ground that strict rules of limitation were not applicable being a case of grant of temporary permit and the application for the grant thereof could even be entertained at the stage of arguments, the primary object being public interest which remained paramount till the grant of the permit. Additionally, the Appellate Tribunal took the view that both the contending parties shall share the permit by having one return trip each.

(3.) In the return filed by the contesting respondent, the factual position is not seriously disputed; rather it is conceded that the application made by it was beyond limitation. It has at the same time been clarified that to begin with notice Annexure P-1 pertained to the grant of three temporary permits but at the time of considering the need, in public interest, those were raised to five permits. And so far as the one granted to the petitioner was concerned, it was to have two return trips. It has further been asserted that the grant of temporary permit with one return trip to the respondent by the Appellate Tribunal was in exercise of the same power as that of the R. T. A., for conceptionally the Tribunal considered the temporary need as if existing on the date of the grant of the original permit.