- (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed on the following allegations. The petitioner-Company is carrying on the business of motor transport on certain routes in the punjab, including Sunam-Budhlada route. On the last named route, the petitioner held three temporary permits which authorised the petitioner to ply their Stage carriages via Jakhepal (a kacha route ). In 1957, the Deputy Commissioner, sangrur, recommended to the R. T. A. , Patiala, that the said three permits should be varied so as to allow the petitioner-Company to run on the Sunam-Budhlada route via Bhiki instead of via Jakhepal. This recommendation, it is pleaded, was made on the persistent demands of the public of the ilaqa who represented that they were put to great inconvenience as the route via Jakhepal was only a fair weather route and in the rainy weather the operation of the services was suspended for months. This re-commendaion is said to have come up before the regional Transport Authority and objections were invited from other transporters as well as the general public. Those objections were heard by Regional Transport authority on 17th of September 1957 and it was decided that instead of varying the route for all the three permits only one permit should be so varied. On the basis of this decision a recommendation by the Regional Transport Authority was made to the State Transport Authority which after following the routine formalities and hearing objections accepted the recommendation of the Regional Transport authority. In this manner, the petition proceeds, the route covered by one permit was varied. The order of the State Transport Authority is dated 10th of March 1958. Against the decision of the Regional Transport Authority dated 17th of september 1957 recommending variation in the route of one of the permits, the patiala Bus Service Limited, respondent No. 2 Before me, preferred an appeal before the Provincial Transport Controller, the Appellate Authority constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. This appeal came up for hearing before the appellate Authority but was disallowed as incompetent after hearing the parties. Respondent No. 2 filed a revision before the Secretary, Transport Department, chandigarh. It was, however, heard by the Hon'ble Minister for Revenue and transport Department on 5th of March 1959 and was allowed, with the result that the deviation in one of the permits allowed to the petitioner was revoked. Before the appeal came up for hearing before the Provincial Transport Controller, the regional Transport Authority, Patiala, had, after following the procedure of Section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act regularised all the petitioner's three permits on 16th of December 1957. Against this regularisation no appeal or revision was preferred by respondent No. 2, with the result that this regularisation became final and unassailable. Before the hon'ble Minister the petitioner contended that the decision of the Provincial transport Controller on the incompetency of the appeal was correct and was supported by a decision of the Madras High Court reported as Kali Mudaliar v. Vedachala Mudaliar. , AIR 1952 Mad. 545; it was also contended that if the Hon'ble minister did not agree with the view of the Provincial Transport Controller on the question of the maintainability of the appeal, then the case might be sent back to the Appellate Authority to be heard on the merits; it was further argued before the hon'ble Minister that no appeal having been preferred by respondent No. 2 against the decision of the Regional Transport Authority dated 16th of December 1957 by which the permits in question had been regularised, the said respondent could not prosecute his revision and get the variation revoked. These contentions did not find favour with the Hon'ble Minister who allowing the revision, revoked the variation granted by the Regional Transport Authority on 17th of September 1957 This order of the Hon'ble Minister dated 5th of March 1959 is being assailed in the present proceedings on the grounds:-- (i) That the view of the Hon'ble Minister on the competency of the appeal is manifestly erroneous. (ii) That no appeal or revision having been taken against the regularisation of the permit, the said regularisation could not be assailed in a collateral revision petition filed with respect to temporary permits. Reliance in his connection is placed on an un-reported decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Writ No. 20 of 1958. (iii) That the variation having been allowed at the time when the permit was of a femporary nature, the case is not covered by Section 57 of the motor Vehicles Act which is inapplicable to temporary permits and (iv) That Section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act could not be pressed into service as a deviation of a route cannot be equated with a new route.
(2.) RESPONDENT No. 2 has filed a reply contesting the petition on a number of grounds. By way of preliminary objections it has been contended that the Hon'ble minister was fully competent and had complete jurisdiction to pass the impugned order, which was done after giving full opportunity to both the parties to state their case. Even if the decision be erroneous on facts or in law, it cannot be successfully assailed in these proceedings. It is also contended that there is no manifest injustice caused to the petitioner who originally held three permits, on kacha route and by the impugned order the Hon'ble Minister has only set aside the deviation illegally allowed in respect of one of the said three permits; the petitioner is fully authorised to operate on the original route on fill the three permits. On the merits, this respondent has expressed ignorance about the recommendation said to have been made by the Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur. It is, however, alleged that the Deputy Commissioner had no right to make any such recommendation to the Regional Transport Authority which is quasi-judicial body. It is also asserted that the entire route from Sunam to Budhlada via Bhiki, except for a small area of 9 miles from Sunam to Chima, fell outside the jurisdiction of Sangrur District, with the result that any recommendation alleged to have been made by the Deputy Commissioner Sangrur would be invalid. It is expressly denied that any objections were invited by the Regional Transport authority as alleged in the petition. The application of the Company for the deviation was not even published as required by the Motor Vehicles Act and the rules. It was only included in the agenda of its meeting and was affixed on the notice board outside its office at Patiala. Respondent No. 2, however, on coming to know of the meeting, appeared of its own, and raised objections stressing on the regional Transport Authority to follow the mandatory procedure provided by section 57 and to deal with the matter after duly publishing it and inviting objections. The Regional Transport Authority rushed through the matter and without complying with the provisions of law, on 17th of September 1957 recommended to the State Transport Authority for the deviation of one out of the three permits. The state Transport Authority also, without notifying the application and without inviting objections from the public or the operators concerned, took up the matter in the meeting on 10th of March 1958 under the chairmanship of the Provincial transport Controller. The respondent on coming to know of this meeting also appeared and objected to the deviation claimed by the petitioner; the State Transport Authority, however, arbitrarily approved the recommendation of the Regional Transport Authority, patiala, and thereby overlapped 18 miles of the respondent-Company's route. The procedure adopted both by the Regional Transport Authority and the State transport Authority is alleged to be illegal and not warranted by any provision of law; it is also emphasised that in the orders neither the Regional nor the State transport Authority has specified any particular permit in respect of which the deviation is allowed. Replying to the allegation regarding the competency of the appeal, the respondent has placed reliance on a Full Bench decision of the Rajasthan High Court reported as Jairamdas v. Regional Transport, (S) AIR 1957 Raj 312. and has sought to distinguish the judgment of the Madras High Court in AIR 1952 Mad 543; the correctness of the Madras decision has also been questioned. This respondent has also objected that the petitioner having not stated facts correctly in his petition is not entitled to relief under Article 226. It has been stated that the petitioner-Company held three temporary permits Nos. 165, 167 and 168 on Sunam-Budhlada via Jakhepall Kacha route. By its application dated 21st of August 1957 the petitioner applied to the Regional transport Authority, Patiala, for the grant of regular permits for three years as provided by Sections 57 and 58 on this route. This application was notified in the daily 'ranjit' dated 11th of September 1957 and objections were invited from the public. The matter was taken up in the meeting of the Regional Transport authority on 16th of December 1957. The respondent-Company not being affected by the grant of regular permits to the petitioner on the Kacha route did not raise any objection. These three permits were thus regularised by the Regional Transport Authority, Patiala. It is contended that the respondent is only prejudiced by the deviation of the route illegally made in viola-lion of the provisions of Sections 47 and 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act which has resulted in overlapping the metalled route via Bhiki which is operated by the respondent-Company. In this connection it is emphasised that the deviation really amounts to the grant of a new permit in view of Section 57 (8) of the Motor Vehicles Act which the regional Transport Authority was not competent to grant, in view of the directions given by the State Government, and also without complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 57 of the Act and the rules framed thereunder. It has also been pleaded that the actual entry regarding deviation was made on permit No. 167, a long time after the acceptance of the recommendation by the State transport Authority, on 10th of March 1958 and in this connection it is further averred that till such time as the deviation was permitted by the Regional transport Authority in pursuance of the letter received from the State Transport authority, the operation of the petitioner was on the Kacha route. Along with the reply, respondent No. 2 has also attached a plan (R. 1) showing that the variation in Sunam-Budhlada route via Bhiki substantially and in all essential particulars amounts in fact to a new route because the only common factors arc virtually the starling point and the terminus.
(3.) THE reply filed on behalf pf the State of Punjab through the Secretary, Regional transport Authority, also expressly asserts that the subject regarding the deviation of the permits from Sunam-Budhlada via Jakhepal route to the route via bhiki was discussed in the meeting of the Regional Transport Authority on 17th of september 1957 without inviting objections from the transporters or the general public. This subject-matter, according to this reply, was published in the newspapers and put on the notice board of the office as one of the items of the agenda to be discussed in the meeting. The objections, however, were heard by the Regional Transport Authority and it was resolved that one of the permits of the petitioner be deviated. This resolution is, also, expressly asserted to be, subject to the approval of the State Transport authority which was given on 10th of March 1958. Before giving its approval, the state Transport Authority considered the recommendation of the Regional transport Authority and the objections raised by the Patiala Bus Service and Pepsu road Transport Corporation, Patiala, represented by the Deputy Transport controller. It is admitted that the three permits Nos. 165, 167 and 168 held by the petitioner at Sunam-Budhlada via Jakhepal route became regular in the meeting of the regional Transport Authority held on 16th of December 1957, and against this regularisation of three permits via Jakhepal route no appeal was filed by respondent No. 2. Permits on the prescribed forms arc admitted to have been issued on 14th of March 1958 and the deviation via Bhiki was given on regular permit No. 167 on 23th of March 1958 after the decision of the State Transport authority dated 10th of March 1958. The view of the Transport Minister, that the appeal was competent, has been pleaded to be correct.;