Having a permit under the scheduled caste category does not disqualify a candidate from applying for another permit in other routes under the same category of reservation.

JUDGMENT

Vikas Bahl, J. - This is a civil writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the order dated 17.09.1988 (Annexure P-4) passed by the respondent no.2-The State Transport Commissioner, Punjab as well as the order dated 12.10.1990 (Annexure P-5) passed by the respondent no.1-The State Transport Appellate Tribunal vide which the appeal filed by the petitioner and one M/s Patiala Bus Highways Private Limited has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner is a partnership firm which is registered under the Indian Partnership Act having its Head Office at Patiala and has two partners, both of whom belong to the scheduled castes community and are citizens of India. The Government of Punjab in exercise of its powers under sub-section 1-A read with subsection 1-B of Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act 1939) was pleased to reserve 25% of the stage carriage permits to be granted in any calendar year for the members of the schedules castes domiciled in Punjab, vide its notification dated 13.09.1979, a copy of which has been annexed with the present writ petition as Annexure P-1. The State Transport Commissioner, Punjab vide notice dated 22.03.1998 which was published in the Motor Transport Gazette, invited applications for grant of regular stage carriage permits on 5 different routes including the route in question i.e, Sultantpur-Patiala via Saiflabad Bhandal-Kapurthala Jalandhar Ludhiana- Nandpur Kesho for which there were 4 number of permits with two return trips daily. A perusal of the notice (Annexure P-2) would show that the same has been issued in pursuance of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 27.07.1987 in Civil Appeal no.1522 of 1987 titled as 'M/s Jagjit Bus Service (Regd.) Amritsar vs. The State Transport Commissioner, Punjab and another' reported as AIR 1987 Supreme Court 2272. In the said notice, specific mention has been made with respect to the government policy which provided for a quota of 25% of the stage carriage permits to be reserved for scheduled castes/scheduled tribes and reference has also been made with respect to the other categories for which the reservations were made. It was provided that the applicants who were claiming reservation, were required to annex necessary documents including a certificate in support of their claim. The petitioner firm which fulfilled the said qualification as it was domiciled in Punjab and also had two partners who belonged to the scheduled castes community, had applied for two permits with one return trip on the route in question.

3. The State of Punjab in exercise of the powers under Section 43- A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and Rules 4.4-A of the Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940 was pleased to issue certain directions to respondent no. 1 vide notification dated 13.09.1979 (Annexure P-3). The directions contained in Clause 4 specifically mentioned that in the case of a firm not more than 5 permits shall be granted and thus, the petitioner being a firm could have been granted up to 5 permits. The State Transport Commissioner vide impugned order dated 17.09.1988 considered the case of 22 applicants with respect to the route in question and granted all the 4 permits with two return trips daily to the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Kapurthala Depot (respondent No. 3). The claim of the petitioner as well as of the other candidates namely Jullundur-Ludhiana Transport Co. Reg.Jullundur, Kalgidhar Transport Co. Regd. Phagwara and Goraya Bus Service, Goraya, who were also claiming stage carriage permits on the basis of reservation was rejected primarily on the ground that the petitioner and the said firms/ societies had already been granted stage carriage permits earlier and thus, were not to be granted stage carriage permits for the route in question in public interest. Neither the inter se m