- (1.) PEPSU Road Transport Corporation, the petitioner, is aggrieved by the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, by which a route permit has been granted to respondent No. 3, the Kamal Bus Service. A few facts may be noticed.
(2.) THE State Transport Commissioner granted a temporary Stage Carriage Permit for plying one return trip daily on Dharamgarh-Chandigarh route in favour of the petitioner for a period of four months during the year 1976. This permit was renewed from time to time. On July 27, 1987, the Supreme Court of India in M/s Jagjit Bus Service (Regd.) Amritsar v. State Transport Commissioner Punjab, A. I. R. 1987 S. C. 2272, ordered the cessation of all temporary permits and the grant of regular permits on all those routes where the need of the travelling public is of a permanent nature Accordingly, applications for the grant of one regular stage carriage permit for plying one return trip on the said route were invited vide notice dated June 13, 1988. Respondent No. 3 along with the petitioner had another Company applied for the grant of the permit. In accordance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter to be referred to as the 1939 Act) as also the rules framed thereunder, the contents of the applications were published and objections were invited. After consideration of the matter, the State Transport Commissioner granted the permit to the petitioner. Aggrieved by this order, respondent No. 3 tiled an appeal The Tribunal vide its order dated September 3. 1991 (a copy of the order has been placed on record as Annexure P-3) accepted the appeal and granted the permit to respondent No.
(3.) THE petitioner challenged this order before this Court through; C. W P. No. 473 of 1992. A Division Bench of this Court found that the appeal was accepted in the absence of the counsel for the petitioner and that it had no opportunity to rebut the evidence produced by respondent No. 3. Accordingly, the case was remitted to the Tribunal for fresh decision in accordance with law. A copy of the order passed by the Division Bench is on the record as Annexure P-4. The petitioner then produced the evidence. The Tribunal decided the matter afresh after considering the evidence produced on behalf of the petitioners. However, it found no reason to change the order passed by it on September 3, 1991. Accordingly, it upheld the grant of the permit to respondent No. 3. Aggrieved by this order, the Pepsu Road, Transport Corporation alongwith another have fifed the present petition, A copy of this order has been produced as Annexure P-8 with this petition. 3. A written statement has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 3. It has been inter alia averred that inspire of the grant of an opportunity, the petitioners have not been able to prove that they had ever operated on the route in question. It has been further averred that the respondent had made huge investment in the shape of purchase of chassis on January 2, 1992, and as such, the claim made by the petitioner cannot be sustained. It has been further averred that a perusal of the notice inviting applications completely demolished the claim of the petitioner that at it is a monopoly route and in that situation no application could be invited for the said route from the general public. This notice completely estops the petitioner from raising such a plea". Various other grounds raised on behalf of the petitioner have also been controverted. ;