IMPORTANT POINT
Article 226 of Constitution of India confers extra ordinary jurisdiction on High Court to issue high prerogative writs for enforcement of fundamental rights or any other purpose, the powers are of course wide and expansive but not to be exercised as an appellate Authority re-appreciating finding of facts recorded by a Tribunal or an authority exercising quasi judicial functions.

Headnote:Constitution of India,1950-Article 226- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 89 -Stage carriage permits –Grant of -Order passed by High Court directing State Transport Commissioner to grant Stage Carriage Permits to the private operators rejecting the claims of the State Transport Undertakings (STUs)- Appeals thereagainst-Plea of appellants that High Court was not justified in directing Commissioner to grant permits to the private operators on the ground that the STUs had either not utilized the permits, surrendered the permits or not applied for the permits-Held Article 226 of Constitution of India confers extra ordinary jurisdiction on High Court to issue high prerogative writs for enforcement of fundamental rights or any other purpose, the powers are of course wide and expansive but not to be exercised as an appellate Authority re-appreciating finding of facts recorded by a Tribunal or an authority exercising quasi judicial functions- Power is highly discretionary and supervisory in nature- Grant of stage carriage permits is primarily a statutory function to be discharged by the RTA exercising powers under Section 72 of Act and not by the High Court exercising the Constitutional powers under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India-A writ Court seldom interferes with the orders passed by such authorities exercising quasi-judicial functions, unless there is serious procedural illegality or irregularity or they have acted in excess of their jurisdiction- If there is any dispute on the proper implementation of the ratio or inclusion or exclusion of any route or area in the Scheme, the RTA can always examine the same, if it is moved- The direction given by the High Court to the RTA to grant regular permits to private operators, hence held patently illegal-Impugned judgments of High Court set aside-Order passed by Commissioner affirmed by the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal upheld-Common judgment of High Court and also orders passed by Commissioner directing grant of regular permits to private operators set aside-Appeals allowed. (Paras 27, 28)
       Facts of the Case :
       An Order was passed by High Court herein in the instant case directing State Transport Commissioner to grant Stage Carriage Permits to the private operators rejecting the claims of the State Transport Undertakings (STUs).
       2.Present Appeals have been filed against said order of High Court. Plea of appellants that High Court was not justified in directing Commissioner to grant permits to the private operators on the ground that the STUs had either not utilized the permits, surrendered the permits or not applied for the permits.
       Findings of the Court :
       Held Article 226 of Constitution of India confers extra ordinary jurisdiction on High Court to issue high prerogative writs for enforcement of fundamental rights or any other purpose, the powers are of course wide and expansive but not to be exercised as an appellate Authority re-appreciating finding of facts recorded by a Tribunal or an authority exercising quasi judicial functions. Power is highly discretionary and supervisory in nature. Grant of stage carriage permits is primarily a statutory function to be discharged by the RTA exercising powers under Section 72 of Act and not by the High Court exercising the Constitutional powers under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India.A writ Court seldom interferes with the orders passed by such authorities exercising quasi-judicial functions, unless there is serious procedural illegality or irregularity or they have acted in excess of their jurisdiction. If there is any dispute on the proper implementation of the ratio or inclusion or exclusion of any route or area in the Scheme, the RTA can always examine the same, if it is moved. The direction given by the High Court to the RTA to grant regular permits to private operators, hence was held patently illegal. Impugned judgments of High Court were set aside. Order passed by Commissioner affirmed by the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal was upheld. Common judgment of High Court and also orders passed by Commissioner directing grant of regular permits to private operators was set aside. Appeals were allowed.

JUDGMENT

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. —

1.Leave granted in all these special leave petitions.

Facts of the first two appeals.

2.We will first deal with the first two appeals which arise out of a common order dated 21.8.2000 passed by the State Transport Commissioner (in short “the Commissioner”) exercising the powers conferred on the Regional Transport Authorities of Jalandhar, Patiala and Ferozpur. The order of the Commissioner was confirmed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (in short “the Tribunal”) vide its order dated 27.4.2005, but interfered with by the High Court in C.W.P No.8483/2005 and C.W.P. No.11768 of 2005 respectively with a positive direction to the Commissioner to grant Stage Carriage Permits to the private operators rejecting the claims of the State Transport Undertakings (STUs). The legality of the order of the High Court is under challenge in these two cases filed by the State of Punjab through the Commissioner and the Punjab Roadways, Moga, represented by its General Manager.

3.The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jalandhar, published a notice in the Motor Transport Gazette, Weekly, Chandigarh in its issue dated 22.2.1999 inviting applications for the grant of four Stage Carriage Permits for plying two return trips daily in the Pathankot - Faridkot via Mukkerian, Dasuya, Jalandhar Nakodar, Moga, Talwandi Bhai, Mudki route a substantial portion of which falls within the National and State Highways. As per the scheme published on 9th August, 1990 (in short the ‘1990 Scheme’) modified by the Punjab Government on 21.10.1997 (in short the ‘1997 modified scheme’), the routes on the National as well as State Highways have to be shared by the STUs and private operators in a specified ratio.

4.In response to the notice, 112 applications were received which included the applications from the General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Moga as well as from the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Faridkot, (STUs).

5.The contents of the applications were published in the Motor Transport Gazette Weekly, Chandigarh in its issue dated 22.4.1999 inviting representations/suggestions from the general public, but there was no response.

6.Out of the 112 applicants, 31 applicants failed to respond. Out of four permits, it was decided by the Commissioner that two permits with one return trip daily be allotted to STUs and other two trips to the private operators. The General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Moga applied for the grant of two stage carriage permits with one return trip daily in the notified route and the General Manager, Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Faridkot applied for the grant of four stage carriage permits for plying two return trips daily on that route.

7.The representatives of the STUs submitted that due share of mileage be allotted to them. The Commissioner heard the rest of the applicants who had applied for permits in the private sector. It was decided that the applications of existing operators be not considered in the interest of healthy competition and for maintaining balanced transport service and also to ensure that monopoly of individuals or a group be not allowed to develop in the particular route/ area.

8.Applications from the new entrants were considered by the Commissioner and it was resolved vide order dated 21.8.2000 to grant one stage carriage permit for plying one return daily trip each on the notified route to the Punjab Roadways, Moga and to Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, and one permit to Gurbhajan Singh and Jagdev Singh jointly and the other to Metro Transport Registered Sangrur for a period of five years. The grantees were allowed three months’ time to obtain the permits.

9.Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner, three appeals — Appeal Nos.391/2000, 233/2001 and 147/2004 were preferred by the private applicants before the Tribunal under Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the ‘Act’) challenging the grant of permits to the private operators and the STUs. Before the Tribunal, it w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2010 Supreme(SC) 371

Cases Referred (6)