GAMDOOR SINGH Vs. ADDITIONAL STATE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 21.12.2006, passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Tribunal'), whereby on revision petition filed by the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala (respondent No. 3 herein), the order dated 18.11.2005 passed by the Additional State Transport Commissioner, Punjab, exercising the powers of the Regional Transport Authority, Patiala (hereinafter referred to as 'the STC') granting regular extension of the route of the stage carriage permit upto Dharamheri from Samana and allowing decrease in trips from four to three daily on the varied route, has been set aside.

(2.) IN the present case, the petitioner was holding one regular stage carriage permit No. 485/MBR/97 with four return trips daily for operation of mini bus on Nadampur to Bus Stand Samana via Kadrabad, Kulburchhan, Gajipur, Bishanpura, Kahangarh route. The said permit was granted to the petitioner in the year 1997. Subsequently, in the year 2005, he filed an application for the grant of regular extension of the said route upto Dharamheri from Samana via Mehmoodpur Adda, Badanpur, Gheora village Chaba, Daba, Sarora, Khushal Majra, Udam Singh Chowk, Cheeka, Sadarheri, Katiana and for decrease in return trips from four to three trips daily on varied route in public interest. On that application, a survey was got conducted from the District Transport Officer, Patiala, who reported that the proposed extension of the route being 8.6 Kms. was permissible under Section 80(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). When the contents of the said application were got published, respondent No. 3 - PRTC raised objection to the proposed extension in the route. It was objected that the proposed extension of the route from Samana upto Dharamheri covering a length of 19 Kms. lies in the State of Haryana, therefore, the same was in violation of the provisions contained in the second proviso to sub-section 1 of Section 88 of the Act, which provides that where both the starting point and termini point of a route are situate within the same State, but part of such route lies in any other State and the length of such part does not exceed 16 Kms., the permit shall be valid in the other State in respect of that part of the route which is in that other State notwithstanding that such permit has not been counter-signed by the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority of that other State. It was further objected that the proposed extension is contrary to the notification dated 22.2.2005, whereby the State Government has formulated the routes in respect of grant of mini bus permits and the proposed extension route does not fall under the list of formulated routes, notified by the State by the aforesaid notification. Therefore, the proposed extension of the route cannot be granted.

(3.) FEELING aggrieved against the said order, a revision petition was filed by respondent No. 3 - PRTC, which has been allowed and the aforesaid order dated 18.11.2005, passed by the STC, has been set aside by the Appellate Tribunal, while holding that the extension has been granted by the STC beyond the permissible limit of 16 Kms. qua the area falling in the State of Haryana which as per the report of the Surveying Officer comes to 19 Kms. Thus, the said extension was contrary to the provisions contained in the second proviso to sub-section 1 of Section 88 of the Act. Secondly, it was held that the extension granted by the STC was contrary to the notification dated 22.2.2005, whereby the State Government has formulated the routes in respect of mini bus permits, as the extended route does not fall in the routes formulated by the aforesaid notification.