Back
2002 Supreme(SC) 407
2002(2) Supreme 520
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Punjab & Haryana High Court)
M.B. Shah, Bisheshwar Prasad Singh & D.M. Dharmadhikari, JJ.
Subhash Chander & Anr. -Appellants
versus
State Transport Appellate Tribunal & Ors. Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 2326-2328 of 2002
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 18207-18209 of 2001)
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 2329-2330 of 2002
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 17232-17233 of 2001)
And
Civil Appeal No. 2331 of 2002
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 21090 of 2001)
Decided on 21-3-2002
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : Parag P. Tripathi, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Sudha Paul, Mrs. Rani Chhabra, Ms. Anusuya Salwan, Ms. Priya Kumar, Advocate for Ms. S. Janani, R.K. Kapoor, Anis Ahmed Khan, Rohit Kapoor, Rajesh K. Sharma, Advocate for Goodwill Indeevar, K.G. Bhagat, Advocate for Debasis Misra, Advocate, Ranbir Yadav and Rajeev Sharma, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
Under Section 99 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the State Government is not empowered to provide that only a few private operators would operate on a particular route/routes & Regional Transport of Authority cannot ordinarily refuse to grant an application for permit.
Headnote:Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Sections 80 and 99-Liberalised policy for permit-Appellants preferred applications for grant of mini-bus permits for a route under the liberalised scheme -Application rejected by State Transport Commissioner-Appeal allowed by Tribunal-Respondents, holding mini bus permits preferred writ petition and order passed by Tribunal was set aside -Appeal-Legislative mandate to be adhered to before framing scheme u/s. 99 of the Act and all the requirement to be fulfilled-State Government was empowered to frame scheme only in cases where State Transport Undertaking was to operate particular class of service in relation to any area or route-Main purpose of scheme would be to provide efficient, adequate, economical and properly coordinated road transport service in public interest-Clause 7A of scheme found not in conformity with Section 99 of the Act-Impugned order of High Court was liable to be set aside and Order of Appellate Tribunal was to be restored.
Held : Clause 7-A quoted above nowhere provides that State Transport undertaking was to operate on the said routes. As stated above, the State Government is empowered to frame the scheme only in cases where the State Transport Undertaking is to operate particular class of service in relation to any area or a route or a portion thereof. But if the Transport Undertaking is not to operate the said routes, then there is no question of framing any scheme. Further the main purpose of the scheme should be to provide an efficient, adequate, economical and properly coordinated road transport service in public interest. The scheme cannot be vague reserving some routes on the assumption that in future State Transport Undertaking would operate upon such routes. On the contrary, under the Act, the State Government is required to formulate a proposal regarding the Scheme giving particulars of - (a) nature of services proposed to be rendered; and (b) the area or route proposed to be covered along with other relevant particulars respecting thereof. Under the scheme also, dominant purpose should be public interest and not to have permit raj through back door otherwise whole purpose of sub-section (2) of Section 80 would be frustrated. Hence, reading clauses 7 and 7A together also, it would not mean that there was any contemplation by the State Transport Undertaking for operating on the routes linking one village with another village or a town or a municipality in between the aforesaid two villages or a route linking a village with block head quarter or a municipality or city. Hence, as stated in Jagdip Singh s case (supra), clause 7(A) was not in conformity with Section 99 of the Act. Hence, there is no substance in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondents-privileged mini-bus operators. (Para 10)
JUDGMENT
Shah, J.-Leave granted.
2. These cases reveal how the persons who got benefit of permit raj are trying to avoid competition despite the liberalised policy introduced by the Parliament under Section 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In our view, the question involved is concluded by the decision rendered by this Court in Jagdip Singh etc. vs. Jagir Chand and Anr. etc. [(2001) 8 SCC 437]. However, to avoid the competition and to have privilege of running mini-buses, operators who were having permits are trying to create all hurdles. As such, State Transport Undertaking as well as the State has no objection with regard to grant of permits to the appellants.
3. This would be clear from the facts of one of the appeals. For the sake of convenience, we would refer to the facts of Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 18207-18209 of 2001 (Subhash Chander s case). Appellant Nos. 1 and 2 preferred applications before the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab for grant of mini-bus permits at Dasuya - Jalalpur via Miani route under the liberalised scheme introduced by Section 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. That application was rejected on 10th September, 1996. Against that order, appellants preferred an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (STAT) and the Tribunal vide its judgment and order dated 3.4.1997 allowed the appeal and remitted the case to State Transport Commissioner, Punjab to conduct survey and decide the application on merits. The State Transport Commissioner, Punjab vide order dated 11.12.1997 again rejected the applications. Against that order, appellants preferred an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (STAT). That appeal was allowed.
4. Against the said judgment, respondents who were holding mini bus permits preferred Writ Petition No. 16579 of 1999 in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. That writ petition was heard along with group of other petitions and by a common judgment and order dated 30th March, 2000, the High Court allowed all the appeals and set aside the order passed by the STAT and remitted the matter for consideration afresh.
5. Before the appellants approached this Court, other aggrieved persons whose matters were remitted back by the High Court approached this Court and this Court allowed those appeals bearing Civil Appeal No. 7085 of 2001 etc. [Jagdip Singh s case (supra)].
6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in view of the aforesaid decision, these appeals are required to be allowed. As against this, learned counsel for the respondents - mini-bus permit holders submitted that in the matters decided by this Court, Clause 7 of Scheme framed under Section 99 of Motor Vehicles Act was considered and that Clause 7-A is required to be read along with clause 7 of the Scheme framed by the State Government under Section 99 of the Motor Vehicles Act. According to his contention, Clause-7 applies to all future operators of routes other than routes specified in previous clauses. He referred to Clauses 7 and 7-A of the Scheme, which read as under:-
"7. All future operators of routes other than the routes specified in clauses 2, 3 and 4 on District and other roads shall be undertaken by the State Transport Undertakings and private operators in the ratio of 50:50 on the basis of the passenger road transport needs as so assessed by the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab from time to time.
7-A. While granting permits for operations on routes, linking one village with another village without any city or a town or municipality, in between the aforesaid two villages, or a route linking a village with the block headquarter or a municipality or city the use of the mini buses may be allowed on the basis of passenger road transport needs as assessed by the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab from time to time.
Provided that-
(e) The total length of each such route does not exceed 25 kilometers and the total operation per bu
