NAND KISHORE Vs. STATE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge herein is to order dated 3rd of October, 1997 (Annexure P-8). Petitioner Nand Kishore in the wake of setting aside Annexure P-8 further seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus directing State Transport Commissioner, Haryana, Respondent No. 1 herein as also Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Rohtak respondent No. 2 to grant counter-signatures on the permit held by him bearing No. (R.S.9) 2999 on Pilani-Chandigarh via Loharu route.

(2.) The facts on which relief aforesaid is sought to rest reveal that petitioner was issued a regular stage carriage permit to Pilani-Chandigarh route on 27.2.1996. On the same very date, Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur recommended the case of the petitioner to Secretary R.T.A. Rohtak for grant of counter-signatures on the permit. On the very next day, the petitioner applied to Secretary, RTA, Rohtak praying for grant of counter-signatures. Since no action was taken, the petitioner instituted Civil Writ Petition 1835 of 1996 in Rajasthan High Court. The writ petition aforesaid was disposed of since there was no reciprocal agreement between the States of Haryana and Rajasthan on 29.8.1996. The petitioner, however, thereafter learnt that two States were contemplating entering into an inter-State Agreement for the purpose of grant of counter-signatures and, therefore, on 27.3.1997, he made yet another application to the Haryana State Transport Authority praying for grant of counter-signatures. On 22.4.1997, Government of Haryana published a draft notification of the inter-State Agreement and the final agreement came to be published by the Haryana Government after considering the objections on 15.7.1997. A few days thereafter on 25.7.1997, petitioner represented praying for seeking counter-signatures which was followed by legal notice on 18.8.1998. The respondents, however, passed the order Annexure P-8 on 3.10.1997 declining the application of the petitioner for grant of counter-signatures. However, respondents 5 and 6 who had submitted applications later in point of time were allowed counter-signatures and the positive case of the petitioner is that he applied prior in point of time than respondents 5 and 6 and the policy of the government is to entertain applications on first come first serve basis. There is no justification so as to ignore the petitioner who has been taking the issue at all relevant times and to prefer respondent 5 and 6.

(3.) Pursuant to notice issued by this court, respondents have entered defence and contested the cause of the petitioner. Whereas respondents 1 and 2 have filed one written statement, the other has been filed by respondent No. 5. By way of preliminary objection it has been pleaded by respondents 1 and 2 that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief within the scope of inter State Agreement dated 9.7.1997 entered into between the States of Haryana and Rajasthan. The private operators have already been allowed to ply their buses by countersigning the permits under reciprocal agreement by the State of Haryana as per Annexure 2 of the agreement. Now there is no scope left to counter-sign any more permits as the permits within the scope of agreement have already been counter-signed. It is then pleaded that respondent No. 1 had considered the application of the petitioner for counter-signing the route permit issued by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur and rejected the same vide order dated 3.10.1997 being over and above the agreement. It is admitted that final reciprocal agreement was considered on 9.7.1997 and the same was notified on 21.7.1997 in the official gazette in super session of all the previous agreements. It was finalised after deciding objections by the government by affording due opportunity of hearing to all objectors. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur has recommended the permits for grant of counter-signatures beyond the agreement and request of all the applicants under the agreement was considered and counter-signatures were done on the principle of first come first served and on the basis of the recommendations letters issued under agreement within scope under new contract agreement. It has further been mentioned that in the nationalised scheme, it has been laid down in the agreement that the Passenger Road Transport Service "ply of stage carriage" shall be run and operated by State Transport Authority, namely, Haryana Roadways and on all inter-State routes which fall within the share of Haryana as per the inter-State Agreement to the extent of 100 per cent to the complete exclusion of other persons. There is a provision of two single trips only against the permits. Counter-signatures on the two permits has only been allowed on the principle of first come first served within the scope. Inasmuch as arguments have been raised on the basis of averments made in the written statement filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 and there is no need to give the averments made in the written statement of respondent No. 5. An additional affidavit was filed by Shri Subhash Chander, Deputy Transport Controller on 15.12.1998 pursuant to our interim order dated 9.12.1998 which reads as follows:-