GILL TRANSPORT SERVICE Vs. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner had initially made an application for increase of the return trips from one to three. The claim of the petitioner was not accepted. The petitioner filed a statutory Appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as STAT ). Before the STAT petitioner demanded only two trips. Even this request was not accepted by STAT. Hence, the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Mr. H. S. Sawhney, learned Senior Advocate has vehemently argued that the claim of the petitioner for increase in the return trips had been recommended by the survey which was conducted by the authorities. In spite of the survey having been conducted and the recommendation having been made, the State transport Commissioner, has wrongly come to the conclusion that the route is already saturated. Against the decision of the State Transport commissioner, the petitioner had filed "a Statutory Appeal before the state Transport Appellate Tribunal. Again the State Transport appellate Tribunal has wrongly come to the conclusion that there is sufficient service for the passengers as there are overlapping services. It has also been held that the requirements of the travelling public are being adequately met with the existing services. Mr. Sawhney, has further argued that in similar circumstances, the claim of another applicant has been accepted although of a different route. We are of the considered opinion that there can be no parity of facts with regard to two permits on two different routes. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, it would be wholly inappropriate for this Court to examine the findings of fact recorded by state Transport Commissioner and S. T. A. T. as an Appellate Forum. The extraordinarily jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is only supervisory in nature and is exercised sparingly to prevent manifest injustice being caused. It is normally not exercised when finding of facts are based on relevant considerations. Merely because the survey report has been given in favour of the petitioner, would not be sufficient to hold that the findings recorded by the two authorities below are perverse, or based on no evidence. The survey Report would be one of the pieces of evidence to aid the authorities to arrive at a finding of fact. The Survey Report by itself would not be conclusive of the facts stated therein. The report would only be accepted on due scrutiny by the Competent Authority. In this case both the authorities have given categoric findings that the travelling public has been provided with adequate bus service. That being so, we find no merit in the writ petition and dismiss the same. No costs.