- (1.) This order shall dispose of a bunch of writ petitions which do not necessarily involve identical questions of law or facts. However, the genesis of all the cases is broadly the same and issues involved are so overlapping and thickly tied to each other that we deem it appropriate to decide them through a common order. For the sake of convenience, we propose to segregate these cases into the following seven groups, out of which five pertain to one or the other Scheme of State of Punjab while the remaining two relate to the Schemes formulated by State of Haryana :- Punjab Cases (i) the petitioners in CWP Nos. 15786 of 1999; 3547 of 2000; 214 of 2001; 17570 of 2003; 8700 of 2008; 17539, 13624, 15809, 18628 of 2009; 5290 of 2011 seek to strike down the Scheme dated August 9, 1990 formulated by the Government of Punjab in exercise of its powers under Section 99 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as also the subsequent modifications made in the Scheme on October 21, 1997 or thereafter. They also seek directions to the respondents to liberate the issuance of permits on non-nationalised routes and issue Stage Carriage Permits in accordance with Chapter-V of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; (ii) the petitioner in CWP No. 9826 of 2007 purportedly filed in public interest, besides the relief(s) sought at Sr. No.(i) above, has made various other prayers including the one directing an enquiry to unearth the alleged malpractices indulged into by the concerned officials of the office of State Transport Commissioner etc.; (iii) the petitioners in CWP Nos. 3979, 6021, 13244, 14464, 17367, 17368 of 1998; 17084 & 2077 of 1999; 4001, 4002, 4003, 5780, 5781, 5782, 5783, 7096 & 9254 of 2000 in addition to their prayer to strike down the Scheme dated August 9, 1990, also seek a writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from issuing advertisements for route permits, inviting objections-cum-representations, restoring pre-decisional hearing and granting Permits by adopting pick and choose policy especially when Rule 64 of the Punjab Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 has already stood deleted; (iv) the petitioners in CWP Nos. 11817, 12220 & 12209 of 2006; 9705 & 21057 of 2008 have prayed for quashing of the order(s) passed by the State Transport Authority, Punjab refusing to consider their applications for the grant of Stage Carriage Permits. They also seek a mandamus for acceptance of their applications and grant route permits applied for by them; (v) the petitioners in CWP Nos. 5611, 5591, 13557, 20859 & 22820 of 2011; 8783, 17880, 17869, 17876, 19880, 19898, 19899, 19900, 19912 of 2012 seek quashing of the Punjab Mini Bus Service Scheme, 2010 notified on May 19, 2010 as it allegedly ultra vires the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and also the Constitution of India. The consequential prayer to issue permits in their favour for the routes they applied for has also been made. Haryana Cases (vi) The petitioners in CWP Nos. 14639, 17643 of 1998 and 6122 of 2000 seek quashing of the Scheme dated June 18, 1998 formulated by the State of Haryana. They also seek a mandamus to issue them permits in accordance with Chapter-V of 1988 Act. The petitioner in CWP No. 9853 of 2006 seeks the quashing of the Scheme dated November 3, 1993 also formulated by the State of Haryana, as also a direction for issuance of permit under Section 80 of the 1988 Act. (vii) LPA Nos. 1428, 1429 & 1432 of 2012 are at the instance of the State of Haryana against the order dated June 28, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge holding that there is no valid Scheme operating in the State of Haryana hence the extension or additional permits could not be denied to the respondent-private operators.
(2.) We clarify at the outset and it has been so submitted by counsel for the parties also that instead of dwelling upon the facts of each and every case or the prayers made therein, we may address the moot point fencing around the legality of Scheme(s) purportedly framed by the Governments of Punjab or Haryana in exercise of powers under Section 99 (Chapter-VI) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The consequential or incidental claims of each petitioner can thereafter be effectively adjudicated by the State or Regional Transport Authorities or the Appellate Tribunal notified under the Act. Brief Legislative History:
(3.) The Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 replaced the Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1914 and also repealed wholly or in part several enactments of State Legislatures mentioned in its Twelfth Schedule. Section 43 of this Act empowered the State Government to have complete control on road transport. The grant of Stage Carriage Permit was somewhat a discretion of the Regional Transport Authority guided by the factors enumerated in Section 47 and subject to the conditions mentioned in Section 48. Similar was the procedure for the grant of Contract Carriage Permits. Chapter IV-A was a post-Constitution addition in tune with Article 19(6)(ii) of the Constitution containing "Special Provisions relating to State Transport Undertakings", Section 68B thereof gave overriding effect to Chapter IV-A over Chapter-IV and other laws.;