Jasbir Singh, J. - (1.) This order shall dispose of three writ petitions bearing Nos. 12038, 12088 and 12056 of 2006. For facility of reference, facts are being taken from CWP No. 12038 of 2006.
(2.) Dispute herein pertains to grant of three stage carriage permits with 1- 1/2 trips daily on Abohar-Ludhiana route. The route, in dispute, admittedly, is a notified route under the Scheme. The Punjab Roadways was operating on the same, however, due to financial crunch, it had surrendered its three permits. The competent authority then invited applications by issuing a notification, to grant permits to the private operators. After analyzing merits of the competitors, permits were granted in favour of respondent Nos. 3 to 5, by stating that they were the new entrants in business and that the partners/ members of the Society, were unemployed. Against that order, appeal was filed, which was dismissed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab at Chandigarh, vide order dated 2.3.2006. It was observed thus: 10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter. The appellant is an existing operator, while respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are new entrants. The appellant, at the time of consideration of the matter by the RTA was having two permits, two buses with a daily mileage of 356 kms. It is a Cooperative Society, consisting of 17 members. It is true that in the impugned order, the RTA has not specifically mentioned that it was excluding the existing operators from consideration and was deciding to grant the permits only to the new entrants. However, the grant of all the three permits to new entrants can lead to the legitimate inference that the RTA wanted to grant permits only to the new entrants and to exclude the existing operators from grant to avoid their monopolistic control over the transport industry. It has been held in Sri Rama Vilas Service (P) Ltd. v. C. Chandrasekaran and Ors. that refusal of permit to an applicant on the ground that it would make him monopolist is not bad in law. I am, therefore, of the view that since the appellant has already got two permits, it is but fair that to avoid its monopoly in the trade, fresh permits to it should not be given and rather, these should be given to the new entrants, so that there is healthy competition between different operators to procure best services. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that as against the grantees, the appellant does not possess better merits. 12. Coming to the point of violations committed by respondent Nos. 2 to 4 by not operating on the whole of the route, as has been reported by the General Managers of Muktsar and Ferozepur Depots of the Punjab Roadways, I am of the view that cessation of services on part of the route by the grantees for certain time can not be said to be a ground for setting aside the grant of permit in their favour which is not bad in law abinitio. Procedure for cancellation and suspension of permits is the subject matter of Section 86 of the Act. Against such cancellation/ suspension an appeal under Section 89 of the Act lies to the Tribunal. Therefore, during hearing of the appeal, I am of the view that it would be unfair and improper to cancel the permits granted to respondent Nos.2 to 4 for the alleged violations. Proviso to Section 86(1) lays down that no permit shall be suspended or cancelled unless an opportunity has been given to the holder of the permit to furnish his explanation. It is, therefore, clear that for their failure to provide services on portion of the route for certain intervals, without calling for their explanation, permits of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 can not be cancelled. This job of calling for their explanation and further enquiry has in the first instance to be performed by the RTA, which is the primary authority and not by this Tribunal, which can act only in appeal, if an adverse order is passed. In fact, under Section 86(5) of the Act, the RTA can condone certain violations of the conditions of a permit, if the holder of a permit agrees to pay certain amount of money as penalty. Now, this aspect of the matter can also not be considered by this tribunal, while sitting in appeal. Therefore, neither the permits granted to respondent Nos. 2 to 4 can be cancelled nor these can be allotted to the appellant.
(3.) Shri Kapoor has vehemently contended that once, the route permits were surrendered by the State Transport undertaking, the authorities are supposed to allot those permits under the liberalisation policy, as has been envisaged under Section 80(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In this case, it has come on record that the route, in question, is a notified route and the Punjab Roadways had surrendered the permits only because of financial constraints, as such, contention raised stands rejected. Furthermore, observation by the appellate Tribunal that the petitioner is the existing route permit holder and the permits were granted to the other applicants with a view to avoid monopoly on the route, is also justified. This Court feels that the orders passed are as per law and correct on facts. No case is made out for interference.;