KESAR SINGH Vs. STATE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 29.1.2007 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Tribunal') whereby the order dated 28.1.2005 passed by the State Transport Commissioner allowing the regular extension of one mini bus permit for plying four return trips daily on Dhuri-Bagrian route up to Bohran Gate, Nabha from Bagrian via Galwati, Dhingi, has been set aside while observing that the impugned extension granted by the State Transport Commissioner is illegal and violative of the Notification dated 22.2.2005 and the provisions of Clause (4) of the modified Transport Scheme dated 21.10.1997.

(2.) IN the present case, the petitioner was granted one mini bus permit with four return trips daily on Dhuri-Bagrian route in the year 1988. Subsequently, in respect of the said permit, the petitioner applied for grant of regular extension of the said route up to Bohran Gate, Nabha from Bagrian via Galwati, Dhingi. On his application, a survey was conducted by the District Transport Officer. After considering all the facts, he did not recommend the proposed extension on the ground that the proposed route falls on the monopoly route of the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, therefore, as per the Transport Scheme dated 9.8.1990 as modified on 21.10.1997, only the State Transport Undertakings have the exclusive right to operate on the monopoly routes. However, the State Transport Commissioner ignoring the said report of the District Transport Officer, granted the proposed extension vide order dated 28.1.2005.

(3.) DURING the course of hearing of this petition, a contention was raised by the counsel for the petitioner that the case of the petitioner falls under Proviso to the modified Transport Scheme dated 21.10.1997 whereby the private operators may be allowed to operate on a portion of 20% of the monopoly route or up to the distance of 15 Kms., whichever is less. He submitted that in the instant case the monopoly route comes to 65 Kms. and 20% thereof comes to 13 Kms. whereas the monopoly route for which the extension has been granted is only 11 Kms.