- (1.) The Ambala Bus Syndicate Private Limited (hereinafter called the Company) was formed and registered in 1943 under the scheme of nationalisation of road transport initiated by the Punjab Government. The promoters and share holders of the Company are alleged to be old transport operators already engaged in transport business. The Company is admittedly running several passenger bus services on various routes, Rupar-Ambala, Rupar-Kalka and Rupar-Sarhind being some of them. In the petition Rupar-Chandigarh is also one of the routes mentioned by the Company but the Government have in their written statement denied that the Company holds any permit for Rupar-Chandigarh route. It is admitted that while going from Rupar to Ambala and Rupar to Kalka the buses of the Company do pass through Chandigarh. The Company has alleged in the petition that since 1955 there has been a growing public demand for its services on the Rupar-Chandigarh route meaning thereby that such service should only run between Chandigarh and Rupar. As a result of the public demand, the Managing Director of the Company applied for extension of its Rupar-Kharar route permit up to Chandigarh. This application is said to have been duly published in accordance with law and objections invited. No one raised any objection to the extension sought; not even the Punjab Roadways respondent No. 4. The Regional Transport Authority was inclined in favour of the grant of the necessary extension, but, the present writ petition proceeds, as the Provincial Transport Controller had issued some instructions directing the Regional Transport Authority not to allow extension of route which runs parallel to the Punjab Roadways without the previous advice of the Transport Department; the Regional Transport Authority did not itself grant the extension but forwarded the case to the Provisional Transport Authority, Punjab, with a favourable recommendation, according to which the extension prayed for was considered to be in public interest. The Provincial Transport Controller, however, who was desirous of conferring special benefits on the Punjab Roadways, rejected the recommendation of the Regional Transport Authority in utter disregard of public interest. In the meantime the Sub-Divisional Officer, Rupar, some M. L. As., from the locality, the Municipal Committee, Rupar, and the Congress Committee, Chandigarh, also made a representation to the Regional Transport Authority supporting the proposed extension; but the Regional Transport Authority, this time, after coming to know of the views of the Provincial Transport Controller, also rejected the prayer for extension. The Company preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority against the rejection by the Regional Transport Authority. After hearing the Company, the Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and granted extension of the permit in accordance with the original recommendation of the Regional Transport Authority. Against this order the Punjab Roadways went up in revision to the State Government under section 64(h) of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, as amended by the Punjab Amendment Act of 1948. This revision according to the writ petition, was initially heard by the Secretary, Transport Department, Punjab Government, to whom the power of hearing appeals had been delegated. The petition proceeds, that the Punjab Roadways had no locus standi to file the revision because it had never objected to the grant of the permit at the time when objection were invited by the Regional Transport Authority. The revision was heard by the Secretary on 30-11-1958 and orders reserved. Instead of announcing final orders on the revision, the case was, however, later taken tot he Hon'ble Minister, who again heard the parties and set aside the order of the Appellate Authority. By means of the present writ petition the order of the Hon'ble Minister incharge is being assailed as without jurisdiction, ultra vires, mala fide and based on abuse of power; it is also impugned as violative of Article 14 of the constitution.
(2.) In their written statement the State Government have admitted the recommendation of the S. D. O., Rupar, and other prominent persons to the proposed extension, but it is submitted that the order of the Hon'ble Minister on revision is perfectly valid, intra vires and within his power and competence. It is also stated that the Secretary, Transport Department, being, more or less, directly concerned with the Punjab Roadways, felt that it would not be proper if the revision petition were decided by him. It is for this reason that the case was sent to the Hon'ble Minister for decision. Reliance is also placed on the directive, No. 2715-16/T dated 4th of March 1952, of the Provincial Transport Authority by which the Regional Transport Authority could not allow the extension of the route without the approval of the former. This directive, according to the reply, was issued under section 44 (4) of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is finally pleaded that refusal of the extension had done no harm or injustice to the Company whose permits on Rupar-Kharar route were not reduced; public interest has also no suffered because adequate road transport services on Rupar-Chandigarh route already exist. Respondent No. 4 has also opposed the present writ petition and, in its written statement, it is asserted that the Hon'ble Minister is in no way in charge of the Punjab Roadways on the commercial side, which is managed by the Joint Provincial Transport Controller. It is emphatically denied that the Hon'ble Minister, Transport, by deciding this revision became a Judge of his own cause. It is also asserted that respondent No. 4 had not been impleaded in the appeal filed by the Company though the former had been heard by the Regional Transport Authority and was also vitally interested in opposing the grant of extension to the Company.
(3.) The counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order of the Hon'ble Minister and has sought to make the following main points:- (1) That the Punjab Roadways not being a party to the proceedings had not right to come up in revision against the order of the Appellate Authority; (2) that the provision of clause (h) added by the Punjab Amendment of the Motor Vehicle Act (E. P. Act No. XXVIII of 1948) to section 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act is ultra vires and void because it confers a wholly unregulated power on the Government to alter, revise, cancel or uphold any orders passed on appeal decided by the Appellate Authority; and (3) that the order passed by the Minister is biased and mala fide inasmuch as it is inspired by the interests of the Punjab Roadways alone and not by the interests of the general public. ;