SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 29.1.2007 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Tribunal') whereby the order dated 28.1.2005 passed by the State Transport Commissioner allowing the regular extension of one mini bus permit for plying four return trips daily on Dhuri-Bagrian route up to Bohran Gate, Nabha from Bagrian via Galwati, Dhingi, has been set aside while observing that the impugned extension granted by the State Transport Commissioner is illegal and violative of the Notification dated 22.2.2005 and the provisions of Clause (4) of the modified Transport Scheme dated 21.10.1997.
(2.) IN the present case, the petitioner was granted one mini bus permit with four return trips daily on Dhuri-Bagrian route in the year 1988. Subsequently, in respect of the said permit, the petitioner applied for grant of regular extension of the said route up to Bohran Gate, Nabha from Bagrian via Galwati, Dhingi. On his application, a survey was conducted by the District Transport Officer. After considering all the facts, he did not recommend the proposed extension on the ground that the proposed route falls on the monopoly route of the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, therefore, as per the Transport Scheme dated 9.8.1990 as modified on 21.10.1997, only the State Transport Undertakings have the exclusive right to operate on the monopoly routes. However, the State Transport Commissioner ignoring the said report of the District Transport Officer, granted the proposed extension vide order dated 28.1.2005. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala (respondent No. 3 herein) filed a revision petition under Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 29.1.2007 allowed the revision petition and set aside the order of grant of regular extension while observing as under :- "13. Now coming to the legality of the impugned order, the same cannot be upheld by the Tribunal because the RTA was not justified in granting the extension on a route, which is not a formulated route and is not covered by the Notification dated 22.2.2005, issued by the State Govt. Department of Transport. The purpose of passing the notification was to avoid any threat being caused by the operators of the mini bus permits to the operators of the regular stage carriage permits. The Notification has not been set aside by any court of competent jurisdiction. Therefore, the same could not be allowed to be violated by the Authority for no good reasons. The extension in respect of a mini bus permit cannot be allowed by ignoring the notifications/circulars, issued by the Department itself. 14. Moreover, the extension has gone to affect the operation of the STU namely, PRTC on Malerkotla-Dhuri route. No reasoning, whatsoever has been given by the RTA in the impugned order in having allowed respondent No.1 to operate on the monopoly route of the PRTC. The RTA failed to cover the case of respondent No. 1 under the first proviso to Clause (4) of the modified transport Scheme dated 21.10.1997, which provides that a private operator may be allowed to operate on a portion of twenty percent of the monopoly route or up to the distance of fifteen kilometers of the said route, whichever is less, where it is necessary or is in public interest to do so. The record contains the objections to have been preferred by the General Manager, PRTC, Sangrur to the effect that the extension would cover the monopoly route Patiala- Malerkotla from Bagrian to Nabha to a distance of 11 Kms., but the RTA failed to deal with the said objections. The objections being very valid could not be ignored, as the extension affects the operation of the PRTC on the monopoly route."
(3.) DURING the course of hearing of this petition, a contention was raised by the counsel for the petitioner that the case of the petitioner falls under Proviso to the modified Transport Scheme dated 21.10.1997 whereby the private operators may be allowed to operate on a portion of 20% of the monopoly route or up to the distance of 15 Kms., whichever is less. He submitted that in the instant case the monopoly route comes to 65 Kms. and 20% thereof comes to 13 Kms. whereas the monopoly route for which the extension has been granted is only 11 Kms.;