SATISH KUMAR MITTAL,J - (1.) THE petitioner has filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 3.1.1996, passed by the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh, exercising the powers of the Regional Transport Authority, Ferozepur (hereinafter referred to as 'the STC'), whereby the application of the petitioner for the increase of return trips from two to three on Bathinda- Moonak via Kotshamir-Mysore Khana-Maur-Mansa-Phaphra-Budhlada-Bareta-Jakhal- Karyal route (hereinafter referred to as 'the route in question') was rejected; and the order dated 22.11.2006, passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the STAT'), whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order has been dismissed.
(2.) IN the present case, the petitioner was holding two regular stage carriage permits Nos. 692/55 and 192/Reg/89 with two return trips daily on the route in question, which were granted in the year 1989, prior to coming into force the Transport Scheme dated 9.8.1990, as modified on 21.10.1997. Subsequently, in the year 1994, the petitioner made an application for increase in the return trips from two to three on the route in question. On the application, survey was conducted by the Assistant Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Ferozepur, and he recommended the increase in return trips in the public interest. Thereafter, application of the petitioner was got published in the Motor Transport Gazette, Weekly, Chandigarh and in response thereto, seven existing operators, including PRTC, Bathinda-I and PRTC, Budhlada filed objections. The STC, after considering the objections, rejected the application of the petitioner vide order dated 3.1.1996, while observing that since adequate and reasonable number of buses were operating on the route in question, therefore, there was no justification for increase in the number of return trips. Feeling aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, who vide its order dated 22.11.2006, dismissed the appeal, while holding that part of the route in question is covered by the monopoly route of PRTC from Bathinda to Mansa in respect of the monopoly route from Patiala to Mansa. Therefore, in view of Clause (4) of the Transport Scheme, as modified on 21.10.1997, grant of increase in number of return trips on the monopoly route is not permissible. Clause (4) of the said Scheme provides that all future operations on monopoly routes shall be operated by the State Transport Undertakings, provided 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. It has been found that a portion of the route in question i.e. from Bathinda to Mansa, a stretch of 59 Kms. is beyond 20% or in any case, 15 Kms. of the total length of the monopoly route.
(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner submits that since the PRTC has surrendered certain permits on other routes, therefore, the increase of return trip cannot be denied to the private operator on the ground that part of the route falls on the monopoly route. He further submits that the authorities below have not properly appreciated and considered the recommendation of the Surveying Officer as well as the fact that on the route in question, sufficient bus services were not available and in this regard, the Surveying Officer recommended that in the public interest, the proposed increase was necessary.;