JAGJIT BUS SERVICE (REGD.) AMRITSAR, THROUGH ITS MANAGING PARTNER SHRI JAGJIT SINGH, SON OF SHRI KARTAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF SHARIFPURA, AMRITSAR (PUNJAB) versus STATE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB AND ANR.

Citation: [1987] 3 S.C.R. 661 · Decided: 27-07-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH, K.N. SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
JAGJIT BUS. SERVICE (REGD.) AMRITSAR, THROUGH 
A 
ITS MANAGING PARTNER SHRI JAGJIT SINGH, SON OF 
SHRI KARTAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF SHARIFPURA, 
AMRITSAR (PUNJAB) 
v. 
STATE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB AND ANR. 
JULY 27, 1987 
[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND K.N. SINGH, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939-Issue of Stage Ca"iage Permits-
B 
Statutory Authorities should discharge duties imposed on them by the c 
Act by giving primary consideration to public interest and also to funda-
mental rights of citizens to carry motor transport business in accordance 
with law. 
The appellant, a stage carriage operator, applied for renewal of a 
permit to ply his bus on a particnlar route but was granted only a 
D 
temporary permit to do so. Thereafter he applied for issue of a regular 
permit, but once again, action was initiated for issue of a temporary 
permit only. Aggrieved by this approach of respondent No. 1, who was 
exercising the power of the Regional Transport authorities in the State, 
the appellant filed a writ petition seeking a direction that respondent 
No. 1 should consider and grant stage carriage permits to eligible 
E 
persons under s. 46 read withs. 57(2) and grant renewal of such permits 
under s. 58 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The High Court dismissed 
the petition at the admission stage. 
Respondent No. 1, in his counter amdavit, stated that the State 
Government had approved and published two Schemes under s. 68(0) 
F 
(2) of the Act for grant of stage carriage permits in favour of State 
Transport Undertakings and private operators in two specified areas of 
the State which envisaged the complete take over of all the routes by the 
State Transport Undertakings in a phased manner within 3 years of the 
expiry of the Scheme. Since the State Transport Undertakings had not 
taken over the operations from the private operators in accordance with G 
the two Schemes and the State Government had neither announced new 
--' schemes to replace them, nor declared its transport policy, Respondent 
No. 1 had considered it inadvisable to grant regular permits on long 
term basis and was Issuing temporary permits only. 
Allowing the appeal by special leave, 
• 
661 
H 
662 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1987] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD: The Transport Authorities which are statutory autho· 
rities have to discharge the duties imposed on them by the Act without 
waiting for any policy to be announced by the State Government. In 
doing so, primary consideratiou should be given to the public Interest 
and also to the fundamental right of the citizens to carry on motor 
transport business in accordance with law. This Court has observed in 
B several decisions that a Regional Transport Authority would be falling 
in its duty if it grants repeatedly temporary permits to ply stage car· 
riages on routes even though it is aware of the fact that there is a 
permanent need for granting regular permits in respect of the said 
routes. [666E; G] 
C 
The entire policy followed by the State Government and the 1st 
Respondent is contrary to the general scheme of the Act. The schemes 
said to have been published under s.68·D do not specify any notifted 
routes or any notified areas. It is not possible also to find out from the 
said schemes whether private operators have been excluded from any 
particular area or route. The schemes appear to be incomplete and, 
D therefore, are ineffective. In the above situation the Regional Transport 
authorities whose functions have been delegated under the Act to the 
State Trausport Commissioner, Punjab, cannot decline to grant stage 
carriage permits on applications properly made to them by intending 
operators only because the State Government has not announced its 
transport policy. The State Government cannot have any policy difl'e· 
E rent from or independent of the provisions contained in Chapters IV 
and IV·A of the Act. [666B·E] 
In the instant case, it is not denied that there Is a permanent nttd 
to grant permits to ply stage carriages on the several routes in the State 
of Punjab. The policy adopted by the 1st Respondent, namely, issuing 
F of temporary permits from time to time, is highly irregular and Is 
against the language and spirit of s. 62 of the Act, which prbvldes for 
the grant of temporary permits. ( 666FJ 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:Civil Appeal No. 1522 
of 1987. 
From the Judgment and order dated 29.7.1986 of the Punjab and 
Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 3464 of 1986. 
Moh
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.