- (1.) STATE of Punjab has challenged the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh, dated February 3,1992, allowing increase from one return trip to two return trips on Amritsar-Chola Sahib route to Chola Sahib Bus Service (Regd.), Amritsar, in this Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) THE facts:-Raj Transport Co. (P) Ltd. , Amritsar held one regular stage carriage permit No. 2586/sc/74 for plying one return trip daily on Amritsar-Chola Sahib route. Subsequently, the permit was transferred in the name of Chola Sahib Bus Service (Regd.), Amritsar (Respondent No. l ). Raj Transport Co. (P) Ltd. , Amritsar applied to the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jalandhar for the grant of increase in trips from one return trip to two return trips daily against the said permit in the year 1986. The District Transport Officer, Amritsar who conducted survey of the route recommended the increase in trips on the said route in public interest. The contents of the application published as required under Section 57 (3) of the Punjab Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 read with Rule 4. 6 of the Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940, through a notice in the Motor Transport Gazette Weekly, Chandigarh dated October 22, 1986. The State Transport Commissioner, Punjab vide his order dated February 8, 1991, rejected the application for increase in return trips in the light of the Scheme published in the Punjab Government Gazette (Extra.) dated August 9, 1990 vide Notification No. S. O. 41/c. A. 59/88/s. 100/99. Respondent No. 1 - Chola Sahib Bus Service (Regd.), Amritsar challenged the order of the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab, in appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh (for short, the Tribunal) purporting to be under Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Tribunal by its order dated February 3,1992, allowed the appeal and granted increase in trips from one return trip to two return trips, It further held that the scheme dated August 9,1990 does not inhibit the increase in return trips of the existing operator and the provisions of Section 103 (2) (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, under which the application had been rejected, were not applicable in the instant case.
(3.) SOMEWHAT identical orders were passed by the Tribunal in other appeals filed by the private operators. The orders of the Tribunal were challenged in this Court by the State of Punjab through various writ petitions. The matter was finally disposed of by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 9254 of 1992 (State of Punjab v. Guru Ram Dass Transport Company) , decided on July 31,1992, and it was held thus: "in order to implement the scheme after the same is published, the Regional Transport Authority could refuse to grant permit on such applications which were pending in view of Section 103 (2) (a) and Section 104 of the Act, as reproduced above. If such an order is passed with respect to the applications pending, under Section 103 (3) of the Act, no appeal could be entertained. The entire approach of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal with respect to entertain an appeal against an order which was passed under Section 103 (2) of the Act is erroneous in law. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and then grant stage carriage permits with respect to National Highway routes or State Highway routes for which the scheme had already been finalised and published under Section 100 of the. Act. ";