AJIT BUS SERVICE Vs. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M /s Ajit Bus Service, a registered partnership firm, has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 19.7.2007 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Tribunal') whereby the order of the State Transport Commissioner granting one stage carriage permit with one return trip on the route in question in favour of the petitioner was set aside and the said permit was granted in favour of Patiala Golden Co-operative Transport Society Limited, Patiala (respondent No. 3 herein), who was one of the applicant for the said permit.

(2.) IN the present case, the Regional Transport Authority by virtue of a notice got published in the Motor Transport Gazette Weekly, Chandigarh on 1.12.2005 invited applications for grant of two stage carriage permits for plying two return trips daily on Hoshiarpur-Bathinda via Adampur-Nakodar-Malsian-Shahkot-Dharamkot-Moga-Baghapurana- Kotkapura-Jaito route. In response to the said publication, 56 applicants applied for grant of these permits. Undisputedly, the single length of the route in question is 228 Kms. out of which a stretch of 98 Kms. falls on the National Highways and other stretch of 96 Kms. falls on the State Highways and the remaining portion of 34 Kms. falls on the district roads. As per the Transport Scheme dated 9.8.1990 as modified on 21.10.1997, the permits had to be granted in favour of the State Transport Undertakings and the private operators in the ratio of 40:60. Accordingly, out of the two permits, one permit was required to be granted in favour of the State Transport Undertakings and the other permit with one return trip in favour of the private operators.

(3.) AGAINST the said order, seven appeals were filed by different persons including respondent No. 3-Patiala Golden Co-operative Society under Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Before the Appellate Tribunal, it was argued on behalf of respondent No. 3 that the petitioner deliberately concealed the material facts and had actually made a false representation before the Regional Transport Authority to the effect that it was a new entrant whereas actually it was holding many permits. Before the Appellate Tribunal, respondent No. 3 placed on record the documents showing that the petitioner was operating on 5 routes. With regard to the said material, the petitioner had taken the stand that only one permit i.e. Malout-Jalandhar route was in the name of the petitioner firm, other two permits on Gurdaspur-Bathinda route and the remaining two permits were being held by the partners of the petitioner firm. The Appellate Tribunal while taking into consideration all the material and hearing the arguments of the counsel for both the parties came to the conclusion that the petitioner had deliberately concealed the facts in its application that it was an existing operator and wrongly disclosed itself to be a new entrant, and when it was transpired that the stage carriage permit on the route in question was going to be granted in favour of the existing operators, it disclosed that it was also an existing operator. Therefore, the Appellate Tribunal found that the permit on the route in question was obtained by the petitioner by concealment of material facts and by making a false representation. It has also been found that an undue favour was shown to the petitioner by the Regional Transport Authority. While comparing the merits of the different applicants, the Appellate Tribunal decided to set aside the order passed by the Regional Transport Authority and granted the stage carriage permit on the route in question in favour of respondent No.3.