Full Judgment Text
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5238 OF 2009
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.25383 of 2008)
M/s. Buzrak Bus Service Regd. ...Appellant(s)
versus
Addl. State Transport Commissioner & Anr. ...Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The appellant was granted regular stage carriage
permit for operating mini bus on Samana – Baladkalan via
Kadrabad – Madampur route with four return trips daily. In
2004, the appellant submitted an application for diversion
of the route for operating the mini bus via Chhana instead
of going via Kadrabad and Madampur and also for extension of
route up to Sangrur from Baladkalan via Bhawanigarh. After
conducting survey, District Transport Officer, Patiala
submitted report with the recommendation that diversion and
extension of the route will be in public interest. By an
order dated 14.1.2005, the State Transport Commissioner
allowed the application of the appellant and granted the
desired diversion and extension. In compliance of that
order, the concerned authority made an endorsement on the
appellant’s permit enabling it to operate the bus on the
modified route.
...2/-
- 2 -
After one month and seven days, the State
Government, in exercise of power vested in it under Section
68(3)(ca) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “the
Act”), issued notification dated 22.2.2005 whereby certain
routes were formulated. In the backdrop of this
development, Pepsu State Road Transport Corporation
(respondent no.2 herein) filed a revision under Section 90
of the Act with the prayer that order passed by the State
Transport Commissioner may be set aside because the same is
contrary to notification dated 22.2.2005.
After hearing the representatives of the appellant,
respondent no.2 and the State Transport Commissioner, the
Tribunal allowed the revision and set aside order dated
14.1.2005 by observing that the same would frustrate the
object of the notification issued under Section 68(3)(ca) of
the Act. The appellant challenged the Tribunal’s order in
Writ Petition No. 3108 of 2007, which was dismissed by the
Division Bench of the High Court by placing reliance on
order dated 12.3.2008 passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 3932
of 2007 [Kesar Singh v. State Transport Commissioner,
Punjab, Chandigarh].
Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the
Tribunal committed serious error in quashing the order of
the State Transport Commissioner on the ground that
diversion and extension of the route of the appellant’s
permit would frustrate the object of notification dated
22.2.2005 ignoring that the said notification is not
retrospective in nature. She further argued that even
though a specific argument was raised before the Tribunal
and the High Court that notification dated 22.2.2005 is not
...3/-
- 3 -
applicable to the appellant’s case, the same has not been
dealt with and decided. Learned counsel for the respondents
supported the impugned orders and argued that even though
notification dated 22.2.2005 was not retrospective in
character, the Tribunal did not commit any error by relying
upon the same because the diversion and extension sanctioned
by the State Transport Commissioner would enable the
appellant to operate on the monopoly route, which is legally
impermissible.
In the context of the submission made by the learned
counsel for the respondents, we repeatedly asked him to
point out from the pleadings and orders of the Tribunal and
the High Court that the question of overlapping of the
monopoly route by the appellant was raised and decided, but
he could not draw our attention to any such pleading or
finding.
A reading of the Tribunal’s order makes it clear
that diversion and extension of the route sanctioned by the
State Transport Commissioner in favour of the appellant was
set aside only on the ground that the same would frustrate
the object of notification dated 22.2.2005. While doing so,
the Tribunal completely overlooked the fact that
notification dated 22.2.2005 is not retrospective and the
same did not affect the orders passed by the competent
authorities prior to that date. In our view, as the order
for diversion and extension of the appellant’s route was
passed by the State Transport Commissioner prior to the date
of issue of notification dated 22.2.2005, the Tribunal was
not justified in setting aside the order of the State
Transport Commissioner on the ground that diversion and
...4/-
- 4 -
extension granted to the appellant would frustrate the
object of the said notification. The High Court too
committed an error by confirming the order of the Tribunal
without even adverting to the appellant’s plea that
notification dated 22.2.2005 was not retrospective in
character and did not affect the orders passed prior to that
date.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, impugned orders
are set aside and the revision filed by respondent no.2
before the Tribunal is dismissed.
......................J.
[B.N. AGRAWAL]
......................J.
[G.S. SINGHVI]
New Delhi,
August 10, 2009.