Tara Chand vs State Transport Authority
1996 Latest Caselaw 699 Del

JUDGMENT

Manmohan Sarin, J.

(1) Petitioner No.l,a handicapped Ex-service man, invited disqualification as an applicant for the grant of Stage Carriage Permit because he innocently added the name of his wife. The name of his wife was added to meet an objection of the respondents that the Fdr furnished alongwith the application was in joint names.

(2) Aggrieved by the deletion of their name from the list of those granted Stage Carriage Permits, the petitioners have filed this writ petition.

(3) Rule D.B. was issued on 10.08.1992, This petition was delinked from the batch matters vide orders dated 18.09.1995 and has been taken up for hearing and disposal.

(4) Petitioner No. I, Ex-Sergeant Tara Chand, had been discharged from the Air Force after serving for approximately 20 years on ground of physical disability, on 15-5-1991. In January 1992, the State Transport Authority had formulated a Scheme for grant of 3000 permits to run private bus service in the Union Territory of Delhi, out of which 950 permits were reserved for ex-servicemen. Under the said Scheme, the applicant was required to submit, alongwith the application, a demand draft for Rs.25,000.00 in the name of the Secretary, State Transport Authority. In addition, proof of annual taxable income of Rs.25,000.00 , as submitted to the Income Tax Department, or in the alternative liquid assets in the name of the applicant, including cash, securities, debentures, NSCs, etc. or particulars of immovable assets were required to be submitted.

(5) The petitioner No.1 applied and furnished a demand draft of Rs.25,000.00 and gave the list of securities and liquid assets, which included Fixed Deposit Receipts, National Saving Certificates, Indira Vikas Patra as well as savings bank account. The securities also included one Fixed Deposit Receipt of Rs.50,000.00 which was in the joint name of petitioner No.1 with his wife, Roshni, petitioner No.2 in this writ petition.

(6) The petitioner No.l at the time of submission of the application was advised by the concerned official of the respondent No.l that since the Fixed Deposit Receipt for Rs.50,000.00 was in the joint name with his wife, she should be added as an applicant. The petitioner No.1 followed the said advice and added the name of his wife, petitioner No.2, in the application. It transpires that, subsequently, the respondent No.1 called upon the petitioner No.l to furnish a copy of the Partnership Deed between the petitioner No.l and his wife, petitioner No.2, vide its letter bearing No.l649 dated 29.4.1992. The petitioner No.l complied with the same and furnished a Partnership Deed purported to have been executed between him and his wife Roshni dated 5.5.1992, which was made effective from January 1992, i.e. prior to the date of the application.

(7) Respondent No.1 brought out a list of eligible candidates. Petitioner No.1 found his name at serial No.187 in the draw to be held on 29.5.1992. As per the petitioner, the total number of applicants under the ex-servicemen quota were found to be less than the permits reserved and, accordingly, there was no question of the petitioner not being granted the Stage Carriage Permit. It transpires that petitioners' name was deleted from the list of successful candidates. The petitioner No.l represented to the respondent against the rejection of his application vide its letter of 19.6.1992, setting out the factual position regarding the addition of his wife, i.e. petitioner No.2, in the application form at the instance and advice of the official of respondent No.1 since the Fixed Deposit Receipt was in the joint names. The respondents did not respond to the said representation. Hence, this writ petition.

(8) The petitioners have assailed the rejection of application for grant of Stage Carriage Permit on the ground that the application was a joint one. It may be noted here that the following order was passed on 27.05.1992 in Civil Writ Petition No.l784/92 and CM.3489/92: "In the meantime, the official respondents are allowed to carry out the draw of lots and the successful individual operators (other than companies, cooperative societies and partnership firms) would be entitled to get the permits on the basis of the draw of lots and the companies, cooperative societies and partnership firms found successful in the draw of lots would not get permits, but their names would be kept separately. The official respondents will continue the draw of lots to find out equal number of individuals as compared to the aforesaid three categories and the name of such individuals shall also be kept in a separate list and these individuals would also not be allotted permits till further orders of this Court."

(9) The respondents have filed the counter, denying that the officials of the respondent No.1 advised the petitioner to apply injoint name. It is stated that in view of the directions given by this Court vide order dated 27.5.1992 in Civil Writ Petition No.l784 of 1992 that draw should be held for individuals, Stage Carriage permits for less than 50 Kms. route could only be given to individuals. The petitioner's application being a joint one and for a partnership firm were excluded from the category of those eligible for grant of permits.

(10) A perusal of the application form filed by the petitioner shows that the name of petitioner No.2, i.e. the wife of petitioner No.1, appears to have been added subsequently. Moreover, the answers to question Nos.13, 14, 15 & 16 in the application form support the petitioners' case of the application being on the basis of an individual. In particular, in answer to question No.17, the petitioner has clearly stated the same to be a case of proprietorship and had written 'Self' in stead of partnership. Answer to question No.21 is also in individual capacity and supports the petitioner No.1's contention that he had initially applied on an individual basis. Moreover, the Partnership Deed, which is between the petitioner No.l and his wife was obviously got executed after receipt of the letter dated 24.9.1992 to comply with the formal requirement.

(11) On a perusal of the documents on record, we are satisfied that the petitioner, who was eligible as an ex-serviceman had applied as an individual and had added the name of his wife only to meet the objection raised with regard to the Fixed Deposit Receipt being joint with his wife. There is no merit in the contention of the respondents that the application was intended to be a joint one. The petitioner could have easily got the Fixed Deposit Receipt converted to his sole name or a no-objection given by his wife. Besides the respondents having once accepted the petitioner as an eligible applicant under the Scheme in category of Ex-Service man and with the petitioner's name appearing at serial No.187 have deleted the same without affording any opportunity to the petitioner to show cause against the said deletion or to explain the reason for addition of his wife's name in the application.

(12) Considering the totality of circumstances and the fact that the petitioner No.1 is a handicapped ex-serviceman, who has been discharged from Air Force after 20 years of service, it would be just, fair and equitable that the application of the petitioner is treated as an individual under the category of ex-serviceman. The petitioner is not to be held ineligible on the ground that the name of the petitioner No.1's wife was added in the application, only because one of the Fixed Deposit Receipts was in joint names.

(13) In these circumstances, we allow the writ petition and direct that petitioner No.l's application be considered as an individual one in the category of ex-servicemen and the same be disposed of within a period of one month, in accordance with the then prevailing policy. This direction is being given since the petitioner had acquired a vested right to be considered for the grant of a Stage Carriage Permit in accordance with the then prevailing policy.