- (1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 3rd of November, 1970 (Annexure 'B') of the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab, who granted six temporary stage carriage permits with three daily return trips on Amritsar-Anandpur Sahib via Jullundur-Hoshiarpur-Garhshanker and Nurpur Bedi route to the Punjab Roadways, Amritsar, a State owned undertaking. These permits were admittedly sanctioned under Section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 , as amended up-to-date and hereinafter called the Act. This provision of law allows temporary permits to be issued without following the procedure laid down in Section 57 for the grant of regular permits, the life of which is under the Statute fixed between three to five years. There is in force in the State of Punjab what is usually called 60 : 40 scheme, which was notified on 19th November, 1969 as per Government notification No. 12748-IHT-69 published in the Punjab Government Gazette (Transport Department) in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 68(D) of the Act. As a matter of fact, by this scheme, the previous scheme which permitted the passenger traffic in the State of Punjab to be shared between the State owned undertakings and private operators in the proportion of 50 : 50 stood modified and the share of the private operators reduced from 50% to 40%. A copy of the approved statutory scheme has been placed on the record as Annexure 'A' with the writ petition. To the scheme is appended a list of routes operation on which were to be undertaken immediately on or before 30th of June, 1969 by the Punjab Roadways. Clauses 4 and 5 of the scheme, on which counsel for the parties rely, may be reproduced hereunder in extenso for facility of reference :- "4. All operations on new routes or on account of increase in traffic on the existing routes specified in Annexure 'A' shall be undertaken as under :- (i) Sixty per cent of the operations :- (a) on existing and new inter-state routes; (b) on such routes as were inter-state immediately before the appointed day but have become inter-state on the appointed day as a result of reorganisations of the State of Punjab; and (c) accruing to Punjab territories on inter-regional routes; shall be undertaken by the Punjab Roadways. (ii) Further operations on inter-state routes (where existing or new) other than those specified in (i) (b) above shall be undertaken by the Punjab Roadways exclusively. (5) The remaining (40) forty per cent of the operations referred to in :- (i) Clause 3 shall be undertaken by the existing private operations; (ii) clause 4(i) shall be undertaken by the existing private operators and new entrants in the ratio of (30 to 10) thirty to ten respectively." In terms of the aforesaid provisions of the scheme, all operations on new routes or on account of increase in traffic on the existing routes in the State, as specified in Annexure 'A', are to be shared between the State and the private operators in the ratio of 60 : 40. In the instant case a new route was created to reply direct passenger services between Amritsar-Anandpur Sahib via Jullundur-Hoshiarpur-Garhshanker and Nurpur Bedi and the State Transport Commissioner by the impugned order granted six temporary permits to respondent 2. It is not disputed that no notice was issued to the private operators before the impugned order was passed. The petitioner is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act and, as admitted by the State in its return, it operates passengers bus services on various routes mostly emanating from or terminating at Hoshiarpur. Some of these routes, viz., Hoshiarpur-Garhshanker, Hoshiarpur-Mahalpur etc. are mentioned in paragraph 1 of the writ petition. The grievance of the petitioner is that the order of respondent 1 is illegal and without jurisdiction inasmuch as it is violative of rules of natural justice because no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to appear before the State Transport Commissioner to put forward its claim for the permits proposed to be granted for the new route. It is beyond the pale of controversy that the new operated by the petitioner-company. The impugned order has to be quashed on the ground that it is not a speaking one indicating the process of reasoning or the circumstances which created urgency and necessitated the issue of temporary permits for what is obviously intended to be a regular service. All that is said in order is that a demand for the operation of bus service on Amritsar-Anandpur Sahib has been voiced by the public. A Full Bench of five Judges of this Court has recently held in LPA No. 122 of 1969, The Regional Transport Authority Patiala and another v. Gurbachan Singh,1971 PunLR 452, decided on 12th of February, 1971 that if there is pressing urgency or temporary need and no time can be lost by issuing notice for hearing representations, it is open to the competent Transport Authority to issue temporary permits under Section 62. The proposition enunciated by the learned Judges is that as a matter of law it can be laid down that issuance of notices to persons concerned is in all cases necessary before a temporary permit is granted under Section 62 but at the same time it has been observed that "this section does not preclude or forbid the Transport Authority from issuing a notice or considering representations, if any, are made by the interested parties. Considering, however, the fact that the proceedings relating to the grant of a permit are of quasi-judicial character and the same must be conducted in consonance with the rules of natural justice, which rules are not excluded by Section 62, in cases where the temporary need is not immediate or of a pressing urgent nature and there is time to hear the persons already providing transport facilities along or near the route on area for which the temporary permit is intended to issue, it is not only expedient but proper that a notice should be issued to such persons so as to afford them an opportunity of making representations and a hearing for the consideration thereof, before the temporary permit is granted." In the instant case, the State Transport Commissioner does not disclose in his order if really the need was so immediate or urgent that it was not feasible to issue a notice to hear private operators before temporary permits were granted. The State has not brought on the record any material to show that Amritsar and Anandpur Sahib were not connected by bus service and that there was immediate need to introduce such a service. It may be that a direct service was sought to be introduced and there can be no manner of doubt that direct service is certainly more convenient for the public, but in the absence of evidence showing immediate necessity, it was not a case where the state Transport Commissioner could not Act in accordance with the rules of natural justice and give an opportunity to the private operators to be heard before temporary permits were sanctioned.
(2.) Mr. Mela Ram Sharma, Deputy Advocate-General, Punjab appearing for the State, strongly urges that the State Transport Commissioner only allotted permits in regard to the admitted quota of the State and applications for granting permits to private operations and settling their claims inter-se in respect of their quota have been published for inviting objections. The next contention of Mr. Sharma is that the private operators cannot operate between Amritsar and Jullundur which is a monopoly route meaning thereby that it is to be operated exclusively by the State owned undertakings and that notice to the private operates could not be of any significance or use.
(3.) Mr. Laxmi Grover, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, urges that no matter Amritsar-Jullundur is a monopoly route but when monopoly and non-monopoly routes are linked together to create a new route, the case will be covered by clause 4 and the petitioner or any other private operated may become entitled to ask for permits on that route. I express no opinion on this issue as it does not that directly arise in this case, but it is a point which could legitimately by urged by private operators before the State Transport Commissioner if an opportunity had been given to them to present their view point. Again, this officer has ex-parte determined the share of the State undertakings though, as conceded by Mr. Sharma, overall operation on all the routes in the State is to be taken into account to determine the entitlement of the State and the private operators for a particular route. If private operators had been afforded an opportunity, it could have been contended on their behalf, of whatever worth it might be that the number of permits, as proposed to be given to State-owned undertakings, was not in accordance with their share under the scheme if the shares were worked out by an overall assessment in whole of the State. The working of the scheme in the nature of things must involve several details which could reasonably and properly be settled in presence of all the parties likely to be affected by the proposed grant of permits. It must not be forgotten that the grant of permits has far-reaching consequences on transport business whether run by a State owned undertakings or a private operator particularly when the new route intended to be started overlaps in existing route operated by others who are likely to suffer financial loss as a result of the new services. Whenever a new permit is to be granted on the ground that it is share of an operator of a particular class as against another operator, a lis is automatically and inevitably created which needs to be adjudicated only after affording an opportunity to all the interested parties to be heard, more so when the authority to decide the issue is quasi-judicial required to make a judicial approach.;