RAM LAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State Transport Commissioner (for short the 'STC'), invited applications for grant of Mini bus temporary stage carriage permits for 27 routes in Jalandhar district, vide notice published in the Motor Transport Gazette dated 22nd May, 1985 and an extract of which is Annexure P1. Ram Lal, who allegedly belongs to Scheduled Caste community applied for the grant of mini bus stage carriage permits for Phillaur -Jandiala and Taiwan -Phillaur routes. Vide notices Annexure P2, he was called upon to appear before the concerned authority on 5th September, 1985. There were total 17 applicants for Talwan -Phillaur route and similar notices were issued to all of them. On the date fixed, 16 applicants were present and one was absent. The STC exercising the powers of Regional Transport Authority observed as follows: -

(2.) On behalf of the Respondents, two preliminary objections were pressed. The common preliminary objection pressed at the time of argument is that the Petitioner has not availed the efficacious remedy of appeal to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab, as provided under Sec. 64 of the Act, 1939 (for short 'the Act'), and, therefore, there should be no interference in the writ jurisdiction. This preliminary objection was pressed even before the Motion Bench and in spite of that the writ petition was admitted for regular hearing,

(3.) Before other arguments are considered, I deem it proper to deal with the preliminary objections. The resume of facts narrated above shows that the writ Petitioner had applied for two route permits and was called for consideration. However, when the matter for consideration arose, the competent authority formed an opinion that the choice was restricted between the un -authorised operators so as to regularise and regulate their operation and totally ruled out of consideration the 13 persons, out of 16 persons, who were present before him. Therefore, it is a case where the 13 persons -applicants including the writ Petitioner were not considered on merits. Hence, it is a case where out of the 16 applicants, cases of 13 persons were ignored and such a decision in law would amount to a decision, only between the three unauthorised operators without affording opportunity of being considered as regards the other 13 persons are concerned, and this would be in violation of not only principles of natural justice but also the provision of Sec. 47 of the Act, which deals with the procedure to be adopted by the State Transport Authority in considering the applications for grant of such carriage permits, which applies by virtue of Sec. 62 of the Act, while granting the temporary permits. Such a decision would be void and wholly ineffective and the remedy of appeal would not stand in the way to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, because it would cause manifest injustice to the persons whose applications were not considered on merits. This matter is not res integra. See decision of P.C. Pandit, J. in Capital Bus Service Private Ltd. Delhi v/s. State Transport Authority, Delhi : A.I.R. 1962 P&H 17, who in turn relied on a decision Sridhar Raj v/s. Secy. Regional Transport Authority, Kolar, A.I.R. 1959 Mys 120. I am in full agreement with the views expressed in the aforesaid decisions. Hence, the first preliminary objection is overruled.