Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU, J.
Ashok Kumar and others - Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others - Respondents
Civil Writ Petition No.7928 of 2020 (O&M), 8108 of 2020, 8145 of 2020, 8733 of 2020, 8796 of 2020, 9602 of 2020, 10148 of 2020, 10160 of 2020, 10173 of 2020, 10181 of 2020, 10403 of 2020, 14012 of 2020
Decided On : 08-04-2021
The Court held that the impugned temporary permits granted to private respondents were legally unsustainable and quashed the same. The Court observed that the State Government's decision to grant temporary permits was taken without any lawful authority and that the transport authorities had merely followed the Government's decision without applying their minds. The Court also held that the private respondents had no locus standi to challenge the petitioners' writ petitions and that the petitioners had a genuine interest in the subject matter under challenge.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who were existing stage carriage permit holders, challenged the grant of temporary permits to private respondents on the same routes. The petitioners argued that the temporary permits were granted illegally as the State Government had withdrawn the Draft Scheme of 2017 under which the permits were granted and that the transport authorities had not followed the procedure laid down in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act). The private respondents argued that they had submitted their applications for permits prior to the cut-off date of 28th January 2020 and that they had a right to operate buses on the routes in question.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the State Government's decision to grant temporary permits was taken without any lawful authority and that the transport authorities had merely followed the Government's decision without applying their minds. The Court also held that the private respondents had no locus standi to challenge the petitioners' writ petitions and that the petitioners had a genuine interest in the subject matter under challenge.
Issues: 1. Whether the State Government had the authority to grant temporary permits after withdrawing the Draft Scheme of 2017? 2. Whether the transport authorities had followed the procedure laid down in the Act while granting the temporary permits? 3. Whether the private respondents had a locus standi to challenge the petitioners' writ petitions? 4. Whether the petitioners had a genuine interest in the subject matter under challenge?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the State Government's decision to grant temporary permits was taken without any lawful authority and that the transport authorities had merely followed the Government's decision without applying their minds. The Court also held that the private respondents had no locus standi to challenge the petitioners' writ petitions and that the petitioners had a genuine interest in the subject matter under challenge. The Court relied on the following principles of law: * The provisions of Chapter VI of the Act have an overriding effect over the provisions of Chapter V thereof. * A temporary permit can only be granted under the proviso to Section 104 of the Act, which requires the competent authority to be satisfied that no application for a permit has been made by the State Transport Undertaking in respect of the notified area or notified route. * The petitioners have a locus standi to challenge the impugned permits as their rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution have been infringed.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the impugned temporary permits granted to the private respondents.
ORDER :
MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU, J.
1. This common order shall dispose off above twelve writ petitions being identical on facts and law.
2. Petitioners are the existing stage carriage permit holders in terms of an approved Scheme, notified by the State of Haryana under Section 100 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) and plying their buses on the routes in question. In nutshell, their grievance is that private respondents have also been granted/issued the impugned temporary permits on those very routes, but illegally, therefore, the same are liable to be set aside by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
3. For brevity, the facts have been noticed from CWP No.7928 of 2020 and prayer clause in nutshell would be as under:-
(ii) to stay the operation of the impugned permits and further restrained official respondents from issuing any timetable to operate buses on the routes in question and
(iii) to issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Court deems fit & proper in the facts and circumstances of the case(s).
It is relevant to mention here that operation of the impugned permits was stayed and that is still continuing.
4. Facts of the case are that:-
In order to provide an efficient, adequate, economical and properly coordinated road transport service, the State of Haryana while exercising powers under Section 99 (1) of the Act issued a proposal, vide Gazette Notification dated 25.02.2016. After consideration of the objections, the above proposal was approved under Section 100 (2) of the Act and thereafter in terms of Section 100 (3) of the Act, it was finally published as an approved Scheme vide Notification dated 17.02.2017 (P-1). Since the initial proposal under Section 99 (1) of the Act was issued in the year 2016, therefore, the approved Scheme is commonly known as the Stage Carriage Scheme of 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “Scheme of 2016”).
According to the above Scheme, all the areas and routes whether inter-State or intra-State, except the routes mentioned in the Schedule, shall exclusively be reserved for grant of the stage carriage permits to the State Transport Undertakings (for short 'STUs'); however, for the routes mentioned in the Schedule, stage carriage permits can be granted to the STUs, any person or Society/Firm/Company in the State and the operative part of the Scheme of 2016 reads as under:-
“1. All the area and routes, whether inter-State or intra- State, except the routes mentioned in the Schedule shall exclusively be reserved for grant of stage carriage permits to the State Transport Undertaking(s).
2. (i) The stage carriage permits on the routes mentioned in the Schedule shall be granted to the State Transport Undertaking(s), any person, or society/firm/company in the State.
(ii) The permits shall be granted as per the terms and conditions fixed by the State Government.
(iii) The permit under the Scheme shall be granted to an applicant subject to the clearance of dues in respect of previous permit, if any.
(iv) Variation in the route as per provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 shall become part of the Schedule. The termini (starting and terminating points of the route) shall not be altered in case of variation. No extension or curtailment shall be allowed in the route.
3. The permits already granted under the City Bus Service Scheme, 2004 shall be valid.”
Undisputedly, all the petitioners were granted stage carriage permits in pursuance of the Scheme of 2016 during the period 21.03.2017 to 28.03.2017, which are valid for five years.
5. Aggrieved against the Scheme of 2016, some bus operators filed CWP No.5867 of 2017 (‘Nayabash Coop. Transport Society Ltd. and others Vs. State of Haryana and
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
