Punjab-Haryana High Court
R S Bus Service vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 30 November, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:152180
RA-CW-187-2004 in CWP-12417-2000 -1-
101
RA-CW-187-2004 in CWP-12417-2000
R S BUS SERVICE V/S STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS
Present: Mr. Paramjit Batta, Addl. A.G., Punjab
for the review applicants.
None for the non-applicant/petitioner.
*****
No one appears for the non-applicant/petitioner. Earlier too, no
one had appeared for the non-applicant/petitioner.
This is review petition filed by the State seeking review of the
order dated 02.02.2004 whereby this Court disposed of the writ petition in
terms of the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in Subhash Chander
and another vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal and others reported in
JT 2002(3) SC 239.
The review petition has been filed with the contention that the
case of the petitioner is not similar to that of Subhash Chander (supra), and
therefore, the same ought not have been decided in terms of the Subhash
Chander's case (supra).
This Court notices that the State Government after having
received the judgment of this Court, took opinion of the Advocate General and
has passed a detailed order stating that the route claimed by the petitioner was
also covered by the State transport and therefore the judgment of Subhash
Chander (supra) granting relief to the said petitioners for consideration of
granting of route could not be applied to the facts of the petitioner's case.
In the opinion of this Court, the view taken by the
respondent/State is an independent cause of action for which the writ
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:152180
petitioner would be free to approach the appropriate forum. Review petition by
the State in the circumstances was not warranted, as there is no order adverse
to the State transport nor there is any quashing of the modified scheme dated
21.10.1997.
This Court finds that the scheme dated 09.08.1990 and the
modified scheme issued by the State Transport Department dated 21.10.1997
were examined to certain extent by the Supreme Court in Subhash Chander
(supra), wherein the Apex Court observed as under:
"Further, it was made clear in the aforesaid case that
before framing of the scheme under Section 99, the State
Government has to arrive at a conclusion that (1) for the purpose
of providing an efficient, adequate, economical and properly co-
ordinated road transport service;
(2) it is necessary in the public interest;
(3) that the road transport services in general or in
particular class of such service in relation to any area or route or
portion thereof should be run and operated by the State
Transport Undertaking;
(4) to the exclusion, complete or partial of other persons
or otherwise;
(5) the State Government is required to formulate a
proposal regarding the scheme giving particulars of
(a) nature of services proposed to be rendered,
(b) the area or route proposed to be covered, and
(c) other relevant particulars respecting thereto;
(6) and the State shall publish such proposal
(a) in the Official Gazette of the State formulating such
proposal;
(b) in not less than one newspaper in the regional
language circulating in the area or route proposed to be covered
by such scheme; and
(c) in such other manner as the State Government
formulating such proposal deem fit.
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:152180
The aforesaid legislative mandate is to be adhered to
before framing the scheme under Section 99 and all the
requirements stated above are to be fulfilled.
Clause 7-A quoted above nowhere provides that State
Transport undertaking was to operate on the said routes. As
stated above, the State Government is empowered to frame the
scheme only in cases where the State Transport Undertaking is to
operate particular class of service in relation to any area or a
route or a portion thereof. But if the Transport Undertaking is not
to operate the said routes, then there is no question of framing
any scheme. Further the main purpose of the scheme should be to
provide an efficient, adequate, economical and properly
coordinated road transport service in public interest. The scheme
cannot be vague reserving some routes on the assumption that in
future State Transport Undertaking would operate upon such
routes. On the contrary, under the Act, the State Government is
required to formulate a proposal regarding the Scheme giving
particulars of(a) nature of services proposed to be rendered; and
(b) the area or route proposed to be covered along with other
relevant particulars respecting thereof. Under the scheme also,
dominant purpose should be public interest and not to have
permit raj through back door, otherwise whole purpose of sub-
section (2) of Section 80 would be frustrated. Hence, reading
clauses 7 and 7A together also, it would not mean that there was
any contemplation by the State Transport Undertaking for
operating on the routes linking one village with another village
or a town or a municipality in between the aforesaid two villages
or a route linking a village with block head quarter or a
municipality or city. Hence, as stated in Jagdip Singh's case
(supra), clause 7(A) was not in conformity with Section 99 of the
Act. Hence, there is no substance in the contention raised by the
learned counsel for the respondents-privileged mini-bus
operators.
In the result, the appeals are allowed. The judgments and
orders passed by the High Court are set aside and the orders
passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab at
Chandigarh in favour of appellants are restored. There shall be
no order as to costs."
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:152180
Keeping in view that in the present case, the State Transport
Undertaking was to operate on the said route for which the claim has been set
up, and also considering that the applicants have already rejected the claim of
the petitioners which can be independently challenged, no orders are required
to be passed in the review petition filed by the State.
Disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA)
30.11.2023 JUDGE
mohit goyal
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:152180
4 of 4
