STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. BALJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this common judgment, Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 9952, 10760, 10762, 10775, 10776, 10778, 10779 and 10781 of 1992 filed by the State of Punjab and Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 5073, 5298, 5299, 52300, 5301, 5302, 5311, 5312 and 5816 of 1992 filed by the objectors are disposed of as the points raised in all these writ petitions are common and identical.

(2.) C . W. Ps. Nos. 9952, 10760, 10762, 10775, 10776, 10778, 10779 and 10781 of 1992 are filed by the State of Punjab against the orders of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal dated March 9, 1992, allowing the appeals filed by the respondents who applied for mini bus stage carriage permits. The existing operators who filed objections for the grant of permits filed the remaining writ petitions.

(3.) A preliminary objection was raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that the writ petitions filed by the State of Punjab are not maintainable as the State of Punjab was neither an applicant nor an objector for the grant of mini bus stage carriage permit. In support of this proposition, reliance was placed on a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Patiala Bus Highways (P) Ltd. , (1994-1)106 P. L. R. 708. It has been held in that case that the State of Punjab did not apply for any of the disputed permits and it was not aggrieved against the orders of the State Transport Commissioner. Their Lordships also referred to an earlier decision of this court in C. W. P. No. 14400 of 1992 (State of Punjab v. New Akal Land and Finance Pvt. Ltd. , Ludhiana and Anr. , ) wherein it was held as follows: " This writ petitions deserves to be dismissed on various grounds, State of Punjab did not claim any of the permits which were advertised, Punjab Roadways, Ludhiana, was one of the contenders but an appeal was filed against the order of the State Transport Commissioner before the appellate Tribunal by the Punjab Roadways, Ludhiana. Thus, State of Punjab could not challenge the order of the State Transport Commissioner of the Appellate Tribunal straightway in this writ petition. " There can be no dispute about the proposition laid down by their Lordships in those eases. But the controversy in these writ petitions is quite different. State of Punjab formulated the scheme for the grant of mini bus stage carriage permits. The grievance of the State of Punjab is that the State Appellate Tribunal violated the provisions of the Scheme framed by the State of Punjab and, therefore, the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal is liable to be set aside. It is not a case where the State of Punjab is seeking grant of permit to itself. It is invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the implementation of the provision of the Scheme formulated by the State of Punjab in exercise of its statutory functions. When the provisions of the scheme which arc mandatory, are deviated, it is always open to the State of Punjab to make a grievance of the same and seek redressal from this court for implementation of the provisions of the scheme which is statutory in nature and binding on the authorities and the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the writ petitions filed by the State of Punjab and also by the existing operators who raised the objections, are maintainable and the writ petitions filed by the State of Punjab cannot be dismissed on the ground that neither the State of Punjab nor the existing operators could maintain the writ petition as they have not applied for the grant of mini bus stage carriage permits. We, therefore, overrule the preliminary objections raised by the learned counsel for the for the respondents.