http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: JAGJIT BUS SERVICE (REGD.) AMRITSAR, THROUGHITS MANAGING PAR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB AND ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT27/07/1987

BENCH: VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J) BENCH: VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J) SINGH, K.N. (J)

CITATION:  1987 AIR 2272            1987 SCR  (3) 661  1987 SCC  (4) 131        JT 1987 (3)   185  1987 SCALE  (2)143

ACT:     Motor  Vehicles  Act,  1939---Issue  of  Stage  Carriage Permits-Statutory  Authorities should discharge  duties  im- posed on them by the Act by giving primary consideration  to public  interest and also to fundamental rights of  citizens to carry motor transport business in accordance with law.

HEADNOTE:     The  appellant, a stage carriage operator,  applied  for renewal of a permit to ply his bus on a particular route but was granted only a temporary permit to do so. Thereafter  he applied  for  issue  of a regular permit,  but  once  again, action  was initiated for issue of a temporary permit  only. Aggrieved  by  this approach of respondent No.  1,  who  was exercising  the power of the Regional Transport  authorities in the State, the appellant filed a writ petition seeking  a direction  that respondent No. 1 should consider  and  grant stage carriage permits to eligible persons under s. 46  read with s. 57(2) and grant renewal of such permits under s.  58 of  the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The High  Court  dismissed the petition at the admission stage.     Respondent No. 1, in his counter affidavit, stated  that the State Government had approved and published two  Schemes under  s. 68(D) (2) of the Act for grant of  stage  carriage permits  in favour of State Transport Undertakings and  pri- vate  operators  in two specified areas of the  State  which envisaged  the complete take over of all the routes  by  the State  Transport  Undertakings in a phased manner  within  3 years of the expiry of the Scheme. Since the State Transport Undertakings  had  not taken over the  operations  from  the private operators in accordance with the two Schemes and the State  Government had neither announced new schemes  to  re- place  them, nor declared its transport  policy,  Respondent No. 1 had considered it inadvisable to grant regular permits on long term basis and was issuing temporary permits only. Allowing the appeal by special leave, 662     HELD:  The  Transport Authorities  which  are  statutory authorities have to discharge the duties imposed on them  by the  Act without waiting for any policy to be  announced  by the  State  Government. In doing so,  primary  consideration

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

should  be  given  to the public interest and  also  to  the fundamental  right of the citizens to carry on motor  trans- port  business  in accordance with law. This Court  has  ob- served  in several decisions that a Regional  Transport  Au- thority would be failing in its duty if it grants repeatedly temporary  permits  to ply stage carriages  on  routes  even though  it  is aware of the fact that there is  a  permanent need  for  granting regular permits in respect of  the  said routes. [666E; G]     The  entire policy followed by the State Government  and the 1st Respondent is contrary to the general scheme of  the Act. The schemes said to have been published under s.68-D do not specify any notified routes or any notified areas. It is not possible also to find out from the said schemes  whether private  operators  have been excluded from  any  particular area  or  route. The schemes appear to  be  incomplete  and, therefore,  are  ineffective.  In the  above  situation  the Regional  Transport  authorities whose functions  have  been delegated under the Act to the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab,  cannot decline to grant stage carriage  permits  on applications  properly made to them by  intending  operators only  because  the State Government has  not  announced  its transport  policy.  The  State Government  cannot  have  any policy  different  from  or independent  of  the  provisions contained in Chapters IV and IV-A of the Act. [666B-E]     In  the instant case, it is not denied that there  is  a permanent  need to grant permits to ply stage  carriages  on the several routes in the State of Punjab. The policy adopt- ed  by  the  1st Respondent, namely,  issuing  of  temporary permits  from  time  to time, is  highly  irregular  and  is against  the language and spirit of s. 62 of the Act,  which provides for the grant of temporary permits. [666F]

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION:Civil Appeal No.  1522  of 1987.     From  the  Judgment  and order dated  29.7.1986  of  the Punjab  and  Haryana High Court in Civil Writ  Petition  No. 3464 of 1986. Mohan Pandey and Baldev Kapoor for the Appellant. N.K. Sodhi, Mrs. Indu Goswamy for the Respondent. 663 The following Order of the Court was delivered: ORDER Special leave granted. The appeal is heard.     This appeal by special leave is filed against the  Order dated  29.7.  1986 passed by the High Court  of  Punjab  and Haryana  rejecting the writ petition filed by the  appellant inter alia for the issue of the writ in the nature of manda- mus, directing the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab, who is exercising the powers of the Regional Transport  authori- ties  in the State of Punjab to grant permits to  ply  stage carriages  on the route Taran Taran --Muktsar via  Ferozepur and  Sadiq under Chapter IV of the Motor Vehicles Act,  1939 (hereinafter referred to as ’the Act’) and to dispose of the applications for renewal of stage carriage permits which are pending before the Regional Transport authorities.     The  appellant was a transferee of a bus along with  two permits  to  operate  one return trip  on  the  route  Taran Taran--Muktsar via Ferozepur and Sadiq. Those permits  could not  be  renewed  owing to the default on the  part  of  the transferor to make within time an application for the renew- al  of  the said permits before the  permits  were  actually

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

transferred.  Therefore, the State  Transport  Commissioner, Punjab, who was exercising the powers of the Regional Trans- port  authorities  instead of granting  regular  permits  on applications made under section 46 of the Act granted tempo- rary  permits  in favour of the appellant on  the  route  in question. Thereafter despite the request of the appellant to issue  regular  permits  the  State  Transport  Commissioner proceeded to invite applications for the grant of  temporary stage  carriage permits. Pursuant to the  said  notification the  appellant and some others made applications.  For  some reasons  which need not be set out here the  application  of the  appellant was rejected and the temporary  permits  were granted  in favour of the 2nd respondent. The appeals  filed against  the order granting temporary permits in  favour  of the  2nd  respondent became infructuous as  the  period  for which they had been granted expired before the appeals could be disposed of.     Be  that as it may, the main grievance of the  appellant has been that the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab,  who is exercising the powers of the Regional Transport  authori- ties  has failed to discharge his duty under the  Act  which requires him to consider and grant stage carriage permits on applications made under section 46 read with sec- 664 tion 57(2) of the Act where there is need to do so to appli- cants  who  are eligible to be granted such permits  and  to grant  renewal of such permits on applications  for  renewal made under section 58 of the Act. The appellant,  therefore, bled  the  writ petition, out of which this  appeal  arises, before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana for  appropriate relief. The said writ petition was dismissed at the stage of admission.  Aggrieved  by the order of the  High  Court  the appellant has filed this appeal by special leave.     When  the Special Leave Petition came up for hearing  on September 16, 1986 notice was issued to the State  Transport Commissioner requiring him to show cause as to why he should not  be directed to take action on applications  made  under section  46  of the Act for granting permits  to  ply  stage carriages instead of issuing temporary permits under section 62 of the Act periodically, even though there was  permanent need  to grant regular stage carriage permits. In  reply  to the  said  notice the 1st Respondent has  filed  a  counter- affidavit, the relevant portion of which is as follows:               "     In  the  State of  Punjab  two  separate               schemes  with  regard to the  grant  of  stage               carriage permits in favour of the State Trans-               port  Undertakings and the  Private  Operators               were  approved  by the  Government  of  Punjab               under sub-section (2) of section 68(D) of  the               Motor  Vehicles  Act,  1939. Out  of  the  two               schemes one is called ’Punjab Roadways Scheme’               operative  in the erstwhile Punjab  areas  and               the  other  is called  ’Pepsu  Road  Transport               Corporation Scheme’ operative in the erstwhile               Pepsu  areas. The schemes for Punjab  Roadways               and  Pepsu  Road  Transport  Corporation  were               published on 19.11.1969 and 18.2.1972  respec-               tively. A copy of both the schemes are  exhib-               ited as Annexure R1 and R2.                        According to the above  notifications               the Punjab Government had announced that:               (i)  60% operation will be undertaken  by  the               Punjab  Roadways and the remaining 40% by  the               existing private operators and new entrants in               the ratio of 30: 10, respectively in the areas

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

             of erstwhile Punjab State.               (ii)  60% operation will be undertaken by  the               Pepsu  Road Transport Corporation and  40%  by               the private operators in Pepsu territory.               665               (iii) Notifications further provided that  the               schemes will have the effect for a period of 7               years  (upto 18.11.1976) in Punjab  State  and               will  last  till 30th June 1977 in  the  Pepsu               territory.               (iv)  After  the  expiry  of  7  years   (upto               18.11.1976)  in the case of Punjab Scheme  and               from  1st July, 1977 in the  Pepsu  territory,               1/3rd operations of the private operators will               be  taken  over by the  Punjab  Roadways/Pepsu               Road  Transport  Corporation  every  year   to               complete the take over in three years.                        Neither  the Punjab Roadways nor  the               Pepsu  Transport Corporation have  taken  over               the  operations from the private operators  in               the terms of above mentioned notifications nor               new schemes have been announced by the Govern-               ment. The transport operations have,  however,               to  be  continued as at present  to  save  the               public from inconvenience. At the same time it               will not be advisable to grant regular permits               on  long  terms basis in the  absence  of  any               transport  policy  announced  by  the   Punjab               Government.  Under  these circumstances  I  am               granting/issuing  permits on  temporary  basis               after following the prescribed procedure  laid               down  under section 47 of the  Motor  Vehicles               Act, 1939 and after giving due hearings to all               the  applicants at the time of initial  grant.               As  soon as the new transport policy is  fina-               lised by the Government all the stage carriage               permits  granted  on temporary  basis  due  to               non-finalisation  of transport policy will  be               granted  on regular basis after following  the               procedure  as laid down under  sections  57(2)               and 57(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.  It               may,  however,  be added here that  the  State               Government  is in the process of finalising  a               new Transport policy."     A  reading of the counter-affidavit filed by  the  State Transport  Commissioner, Punjab practically does not  set-up any defence at all to the prayer made by the appellant.  The counter-affidavit refers to two schemes, namely, the  Punjab Roadways  Scheme  and the Pepsu Road  Transport  Corporation Scheme  approved under section 68-D of the Act,  which  were published  on 19.11.1969 and 18.2.1972 respectively. It  is, however,  admitted that neither the Punjab Roadways nor  the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation have taken over the  opera- tions  from  the private operators in terms  of  the  above- mentioned notifica- 666 tions  nor any new scheme has been announced by  the  Punjab Government.  The  1st Respondent further states  that  since there was general inconvenience, the temporary permits  were being  issued after following the prescribed procedure  laid down  under the Act. The affidavit further says that due  to the  non-finalisation of the transport policy by  the  State Government  it was not possible to issue regular permits  to run  stage carriages by following the  procedure  prescribed under  sections  57(2) and 57(3) of the Act. We are  of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

view that the entire policy followed by the State Government and the 1st Respondent is contrary to the general scheme  of the  Act.  The  schemes said to have  been  published  under section  68-D of the Act do not specify any notified  routes or  any notified areas. It is not possible also to find  out from  the  said scheme whether private operators  have  been excluded  from  any particular area of  route.  The  schemes appear to be incomplete and, therefore, are ineffective.  In the above situation the Regional Transport authorities whose functions  have  been delegated under the Act to  the  State Transport  Commissioner,  Punjab, cannot  decline  to  grant stage carriage permits on applications properly made to them by intending operators only because the State Government has not  announced  its transport policy. The  State  Government cannot have any policy different from or independent of  the provisions  contained in Chapter IV and Chapter IV-A of  the Act. The Transport Authorities which are statutory  authori- ties have to discharge the duties imposed on them by the Act without waiting for any policy to be announced by the  State Government.  In  doing so primary  consideration  should  be given  to  the public interest and also to  the  fundamental right  of the citizens to carry on motor transport  business in  accordance  with law. It is not denied that there  is  a permanent  need to grant permits to ply stage  carriages  on the  several routes in the State of Punjab. In  the  circum- stances,  the policy adopted by the 1st Respondent,  namely, issuing  of temporary permits from time to time, appears  to be  a highly irregular one. It is against the  language  and spirit  of  section 62 of the Act, which  provides  for  the grant  of  temporary  permits. This Court  has  observed  in several decisions that a Regional Transport Authority  would be  failing  in its duty if it grants  repeatedly  temporary permits  to ply stage carriages on routes even though it  is aware of the fact that there is a permanent need for  grant- ing regular permits in respect of the said routes. The  fact that  the  State of Punjab is thinking of finalising  a  new transport  policy  can have no bearing on  the  question  in issue.     We  are, therefore, of the view that the 1st  Respondent cannot  successfully resist the writ petition out  of  which this appeal arises. In the circumstances we feel that it  is appropriate to issue a writ in the 667 nature of mandamus to the Regional Transport authorities  in Punjab.  whose  duties  are being discharged  by  the  State Transport  Commissioner, Punjab, to take immediate steps  to invite applications suo motu under section 57(2) of the  Act for  issuing  regular stage carriage  permits  to  deserving applicants,  to  grant stage carriage permits  to  deserving applications  who make applications for the  stage  carriage permits in accordance with law and to dispose of the  appli- cations  for renewal, if any, made under section 58  of  the Act by the holders of stage carriage permits. We accordingly direct  the Regional Transport authorities in the  State  of Punjab  to take immediate steps to invite  applications  suo moat  under  section 57(2) of the Act  for  issuing  regular permits  to deserving applicants to ply stage  carriages  in respect  of the routes where there is a permanent  need,  to dispose of the applications made by persons who wish to  ply stage  carriages on the said routes in accordance  with  law and  to  dispose  of the applications that  may  be  pending before  the  Regional Transport authorities for  renewal  of stage  carriage  permits under section 58 of  the  Act.  All these  steps should be taken within four months from  today. The temporary permits which are now in force shall cease  on

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

the  expiry  of the period of four months and  the  Regional Transport  authorities are directed not to issue  any  fresh temporary permits where there is permanent need for granting a stage carriage permits after four months.     This appeal is allowed accordingly. There shall,  howev- er, be no order as to costs.     A  copy of this order shall be sent to the Chief  Secre- tary  to the State of Punjab within a week  for  information and implementation of the above directions. H.L.C.                                    Appeal allowed. 668