SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1974 Supreme(SC) 123

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.G. PALEKAR, P.N. BHAGWATI AND V.R. KRISHNA IYER, JJ.
Patiala Bus (Sirhind) Pvt. Ltd., Appellants
Versus
State Transport Appellate Tribunal Punjab and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 946 of 1973, D/- 26-3-1974.

Advocates:
B.R.L.Iyengar, Hardayal Hardy, K.R.NAGARAJA, L.Grover, M.N.SHROFF, M.Qamaruddin, O.P.Sharma, S.K.MEHTA, S.N.Mishra, S.S.JAUHAR, VINOD DHAVAN

Headnote:

Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Section 57 (3) and 68 (c) – Business of carrying passengers by motor vehicle - High Court of Punjab and Haryana summarily rejecting a writ petition filed by appellant for quashing and setting aside an order passed by State Transport Appellate Tribunal in appeal against an order made by State Transport Commissioner – Appeal against - Dispute in appeal relates to Malerkotla-Barnala Bhatinda route situate in Pepsu territories of State of Punjab - Appellant is a company engaged in the business of carrying passengers by motor vehicle for hire or reward and at all material times it held two stage carriage permits each for a return trip, on Malerkotla - Barnala - Bhatinda route - It was found that passenger traffic on Malerkotla - Barnala - Bhatinda route was very heavy and two return trips, for which two stage carriage permits had been issued to appellant, were not adequate to meet the need of passenger traffic - Held, It is clearly in breach of Section 47 and it vitiated order of State - Transport Appellate Tribunal - We think there is great force in this contention of appellant. Section 47 lays down that a Regional Transport Authority shall, in considering an applicant for stage carriage permit, have regard to following matters - Whether both should be granted to appellant or both should be granted to third respondent, or one should be granted to appellant and the other to third respondent - State Transport Commissioner will decide whether both stage carriage permits should be granted to appellant or to third respondent or whether one stage carriage permit should be granted to appellant and one to third respondent - If either appellant or third respondent is dissatisfied with decision of State Transport Commissioner, it would, of course, be entitled to a right of appeal under Section 64 of State Transport Appellate Tribunal - Appeal allowed.

Judgment

BHAGWATI, J.:- This appeal, by special leave, is directed against an order dated 28th May, 1973 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana summarily rejecting a writ petition filed by the appellant for quashing and setting aside an order dated 19th May, 1973 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in appeal against an order dated 29th March, 1971 made by the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab. The dispute in the appeal relates to Malerkotla-Barnala Bhatinda route situate in the Pepsu territories of the State of Punjab. The appellant is a company engaged in the business of carrying passengers by motor vehicle for hire or reward and at all material times it held two stage carriage permits each for a return trip, on Malerkotla - Barnala - Bhatinda route. It was found that passenger traffic on Malerkotla - Barnala - Bhatinda route was very heavy and two return trips, for which two stage carriage permits had been issued to the appellant, were not adequate to meet the need of the passenger traffic. The State Transport Commissioner, Punjab, therefore, decided to increase the number of return trips from two to six, and invited applications for the grant of four stage carriage permits with return trip on Maler-kotla-Barnala-Bhatinda route and in the meantime on 8th January, 1970 granted two temporary stage carriage permits, each with a return trip on this route in favour of the appellant. The appellant, accordingly, started operating from 8th January, 1970 two additional return trips on Malerkotla - Barnala - Bhatinda route on the strength of the two temporary stage carriage permits issued to it. Pursuant to the notice issued by the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab, thirty-two applications were received for four stage carriage permits for Malerkotla-Barnala-Bhatinda route and out of these applications one was by the appellant and another by the third respondent. The particulars of these applications were published in the issue of Daily Ranjit, Patiala dated 21st March, 1970 as required under Section 57 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The third respondent, inter alia, filed objections against the application of the appellant within thirty days of the publication of the particulars. Before these various applications and objections could be taken up for hearing by the State Transport Commissioner, a scheme under Section 68 (c) was prepared and published by the Pepsu State Transport Corporation on 28th October, 1970 in terms of an agreement dated 20th August, 1970 arrived at between the State Government and the private operators of motor vehicles in the Pepsu territories. The scheme was modified was approved by the State Government by a notification dated 18th February, 1972 issued under Section 68D (2). The broad feature of the scheme was that the total mileage of routes was to be divided between the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and the private operators in the proportion of 60:40 and since as on 1st July, 1970, which was the appointed day under the scheme, the total mileage operated by private operators was much more than the pro-proportion of 40%, clause 4 (a) of the scheme provided that all operations on new routes, on account of increase in the traffic on existing routes and on such operations of inter-regional routes as are situate in the Pepsu territories, shall, until 1st July, 1973 or until such other earlier date when the total mileage operated by the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation reaches its proportion of 60% be undertaken exclusively by the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation. Now, on the appointed day, i.e., 1st July, 1970, two additional return trips on Malerkotla-Barnala-Bhatinda were being operated by the appellant under the two temporary stage carriage permits held by it and the State Transport Commissioner, therefore, included the mileage of these two additional return trips as part of the total mileage operated by private operators as on the day for the purpose of applying the proporti














Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top