- (1.) The facts giving rise to this petition are as under. On the 10th October, 1957, the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab, granted 5 public carrier permits one each to Respondent Nos. 4 to 8 for a period of 4 months and directed to Regional Transport Authority, Ambala, to issue the same. The Regional Transport Authority by their resolution No. 13 passed on the 17th October, 1957, took exception to the aforesaid order and characterizing the same and resolved that the Chairman should address the State Government on the subject in the light of the legal position. Respondent Nos. 4 to 8 one after the other then made applications to the State Transport Commissioner that each of them had changed residence to Patiala and that it was convenient for each of them to have a permit issued by the Regional Transport Authority, Patiala, to issue necessary permits and the said orders were duly complied with. The petitioners who claim to be the public carrier permit-holder and who are already plying their goods vehicles on the Kalka-Simla route for which the aforesaid 5 permits have also been issued have filed the present petition in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to obtain appropriate writ quashing the proceedings of the State Transport Commissioner and the Regional Transport Authority, Patiala, in respect of the 5 permits in question. They allege that they already hold public carrier permits for the same route and are plying their goods vehicles there; that in pursuance of the directives No. 8807/T issued by the Secretary, Provincial Authority, Punjab, to the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Ambala, and No. 12541/T issued by the Chairman, Provincial Transport Authority to the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Ambala, they were eligible for the grant of the public carrier permits on the route in question; that the petitioner No. 2 actually applied for the grant of the same but were informed by the Provincial Transport Authority, Punjab, by his office memo No. 9440/T/1 dated the 31st December, 1956, that it was decided to keep the vacant public carrier permits on the Kalka-Simla route in reserve for "emergent and unforeseen requirements in connection with Government work," and therefore the request of the petitioner No. 2 could not be acceded to; that the State Transport Commissioner had been appointed in pursuance of the provisions of section 44-A added by the Punjab Legislature to the Central Act by means of the Motor Vehicles (East Punjab Amendment) Act (Act 28 of 1948), and the notification investing powers of issuing public carrier permits had also been issued by the State of Punjab under the provisions of the said section; that clause (d) had been added by the Punjab Legislature to section 62 of the Central Act by means of the aforesaid Punjab Act and the permits in question purport to have been granted in pursuance of the power alleged to vest in the issuing authority under the said clause; that section 44-A and clause (d) of section 62 being inconsistent with and repugnant to the provisions of the Central Act 100 of 1956 must be deemed to have been impliedly repealed by the said Central Act; that the State Transport Commissioner had no jurisdiction to grant the permits; that this action in the matter was mala fide for the reasons that he acted outside the Act and while asking the Regional Transport Authority, Patiala, to issue the permits he did not disclose that he had previously approached the Regional Transport Authority, Ambala, for this purpose and that they had refused to comply with his directions on the basis that he had no authority to act in the matter. It was further averred that the State Transport Commissioner had at any rate no authority to issue temporary permits of any kind and that clause (d) of section 62 was void also for the reason that it vested an unrestricted and uncontrolled power in the Transport authorities to issue temporary permits.
(2.) The petition was contested by the State of Punjab as also by the respondents in whose favour the impugned permits have been issued. They controverted the various pleas of the petitioners and denied that the grant of permits by the State Transport Commissioner was without jurisdiction or mala fide. They averred that the State Transport Commissioner was fully authorised to issue the permits in question and section 44-A and clause (d) of section 62 were in no way inconsistent with the provisions of Act 100 of 1956 and could not be deemed to have been repealed by the same.
(3.) Mr. D.K. Mahajan learned counsel for the petitioners contended - (1) That the case was governed by Article 254 of the Constitution of India, and the provisions of Section 44-A and clause (d) of section 62 being inconsistent with or repugnant to the provisions of the Central Act must be deemed to have been repealed by the said Act as envisaged by proviso to para (2) of Article 254 of the Constitution of India. (2) That the action of the State Transport Commissioner in granting the permits in question was mala fide. (3) That the State Transport Commissioner had at any rate no authority to act under section 62 of the act and issue permits on temporary basis. (4) That clause (d) of section 62 vested unrestricted and uncontrolled power in the Authority entitled to issue temporary permits and was therefore, void and inoperative.;