Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU, J.
Kulbir Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others - Respondents
Civil Writ Petition No.7925 of 2020 (O&M)
Decided On : 08-04-2021
STAGE CARRIAGE PERMIT - SCHEME OF 2016 - DRAFT SCHEME OF 2017 - TEMPORARY PERMITS - APPROVAL OF MODIFICATION OF SCHEME OF 2016 - GRANT OF PERMITS - JURISDICTION - LOCUS STANDI - INFRINGEMENT OF RIGHTS - SECTION 104 OF THE ACT - SECTION 99 OF THE ACT - SECTION 87 OF THE ACT - ARTICLE 19 (1) (G) OF THE CONSTITUTION - ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION - CONTEMPT PETITION.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, an existing stage carriage permit holder under the Scheme of 2016, challenged the grant of temporary permits to private respondents on his route, alleging that they were granted illegally. The permits were granted pursuant to a Government decision to modify the Scheme of 2016 and issue temporary permits under certain categories. The petitioner contended that the permits were granted without following the procedure under Section 104 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act), and that the Government had no authority to issue such a decision.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the impugned permits were granted in violation of Section 104 of the Act, which requires the competent authority to grant temporary permits only in accordance with the provisions of an approved scheme. The Court held that the Government's decision to modify the Scheme of 2016 and issue temporary permits was without any lawful authority and that the permits were granted merely in compliance with the Government's decision. The Court also found that the competent authority did not consider the applications of the private respondents or pass any order in this regard, but simply issued the impugned temporary permits as a ministerial act. The Court further held that the petitioner had the locus standi to file the writ petition as his rights under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution had been infringed by the grant of the impugned permits.
Issues: 1. Whether the impugned permits were granted in accordance with the provisions of Section 104 of the Act? 2. Whether the Government had the authority to issue a decision to modify the Scheme of 2016 and issue temporary permits? 3. Whether the competent authority considered the applications of the private respondents or passed any order in this regard? 4. Whether the petitioner had the locus standi to file the writ petition?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the impugned permits were granted in violation of Section 104 of the Act, which requires the competent authority to grant temporary permits only in accordance with the provisions of an approved scheme. The Court held that the Government's decision to modify the Scheme of 2016 and issue temporary permits was without any lawful authority and that the permits were granted merely in compliance with the Government's decision. 2. The Court held that the Government had no authority to issue a decision to modify the Scheme of 2016 and issue temporary permits, as the Scheme was a self-contained and self-operative scheme having the over-riding effect over Chapter V of the Act and other laws. 3. The Court held that the competent authority did not consider the applications of the private respondents or pass any order in this regard, but simply issued the impugned temporary permits as a ministerial act. 4. The Court held that the petitioner had the locus standi to file the writ petition as his rights under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution had been infringed by the grant of the impugned permits.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petition, quashed and set aside the impugned temporary permits granted to the private respondents.
ORDER :
MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU, J.
1. Petitioner is the existing stage carriage permit holder 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 his bus on the routes in question. His grievance is that private respondents have also been granted/issued impugned temporary permits on his route, but illegally, therefore, the same are liable to be set aside by this Court.
2. The prayer clause in nutshell is as under:-
(ii) to stay the operation of impugned permits (P-16 Colly.) and further restrained official respondents from issuing any time-table to operate buses on the routes in question;
(iii) to issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Court deems fit & proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
It is relevant to mention here that operation of the impugned permits was stayed and that is still continuing.
3. 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, petitioner was granted stage carriage permit in pursuance of the Scheme of 2016 on 29.05.2018, which is valid for five years.
4. 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 others’); during the pendency of the same, the State of Haryana came up with an affidavit dated 16.05.2017, in which inter alia stated that upon reconsideration of the matter, it has been decided to cancel Scheme of 2016 and a fresh draft modified Scheme shall be notified within
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
