PUNJAB ROADWAYS MOGA THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGERversusPUNJA SAHIB BUS AND TRANSPORT CO. AND ORS.

                         [2010] 5 S.C.R. 256

A    PUNJAB ROADWAYS MOGA THROUGH ITS GENERAL
                         MANAGER
                             v.
     PUNJA SAHIB BUS AND TRANSPORT CO. AND ORS.
              (Civil Appeal No. 3879 of 2010)
B
                           APRIL 27, 2010
    [R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, JJ.]

        Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: ss.98, 99, 100, 102, 104 and
C proviso to s.104 - Scheme published on 9th August 1990 as
  amended - Stage carriage permit - Scheme providing for a
   ratio with regard to grant of permits ofl notified routes between
   the STUs and private operators - Power to cancel/modify the
   scheme or change the ratio fixed - Held: Such power rests
D with the State Government and is not conferred on the RTA
   - No private operator has right to clafm regular permit to
   operate his service on any part of notified area/route upsetting
 • the ratio prescribed in the scheme except on a temporary
   permit granted under the proviso to s. 104 of the Act - Chapter
E V and VI - Constitution of India, 1950 - Road transport.
       Constitution of India, 1950: Article 226 - Scope of - High
  Court in exercise of power under Article 226 granting regular
  permits to private operators upsetting the ratio fixed in the
F scheme framed under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988- Justification
  of - Held: Not justified - Grant of stage carriage permit is
  primarily a statutory function to be discharged by RTA
  exercising power under s. 72 of 1988 Act and not by High
  Court exercising constitutional powers under Articles 226, 227
  - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
G
       In terms of the Scheme published on 9th August,
  1990 modified by the Punjab Government on 21.10.19~7,
  the routes on the National as well as the State Highways
  were shared by the STUs and the private operators in a
H                            256
 PUNJAB ROADWAYS MOGA THR. ITS GENERAL MANAGER v.      257
          PUNJA SAHIB BUS AND TRANS. CO.

specified ratio. The question which arose for                 A
consideration in the appeals was whether High Court in
exercise of power under Article 226 of Constitution of
India was justified in directing the Commissioner
exercising the powers of RTAs, to grant regular permits
to the private operators on the ground that the STUs had      B
either failed to utilize the permits granted or surrendered
the permits or had not applied for the permits in the
notified routes.

    Disposing of the appeals, the Court
                                                              c
     HELD: 1.1. There was complete misreading of the
provisions of Scheme published on 9th August, 1990 as
amended and provisions of Chapter VI of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988. Provisions of this Chapter confer a
monopoly on the State in respect of transport service to D
the partial or complete exclusion of other persons. The
scheme once published is law and chapter VI has an
overriding effect on Chapter V of the Act and it operates
against everyone unless it is modified or cancelled by the
State Government. The scheme provides for a ratio with E
regard to the grant of permits on the notified routes
between STUs and private operators which is fixed
based on the assessment made by the State Transport .
Commissioner, Punjab on the basis of the passenger
road transport needs which is legally binding on all. The F
provisions of the scheme including the list of routes
mentioned in the various annexures, and the ratio fixed
are statutory in character which cannot be tinkered with
by the RTAs and have overriding effect over the powers
of RTAs under Chapter V of the Act. The power to caned! G
the Scheme or modify the Scheme rests with the State
Government under Section 102 of the Act. The RTA and
the Tribunal committed a grave error in tampering with
the Scheme as well as disturbing the ratio fixed by the
Scheme by granting regular permits to the private sector
                                                           H
    258     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                (2010) 5 S.C.R.


A from the quota earmarked for STUs. Once a scheme is
    approved and published, private operators have no right
    to claim regular permit$ to operate their vehicles in the
    notified area, route or portion thereof upsetting the ratio
    fixed. [Paras 21, 22] [269-F; 270~C-G]
B
         1.2. A combined reading of Sections 99, 100 and 104
    in the light of Section 2(38) of the Act, makes it'-clear that
    once a scheme is published under Section 100 in relation
    to any area or route or portion thereof, whether in
    complete or partial exclusion of other persons, no
C   persons other than STUs may operate on the notified
    area or route except as provided in the scheme itself.
    Section 104 of the Act states that where a scheme has
    been published under Sub-section 3 of Section 100 in
    respect of any notified .area or notified route, STA or the
D   RTA as the case may be, shall not grant any permit except
    in accordance with the provisions of the S~heme. An
    exception has been carved out in the proviso to Section
    104 stating, where no application for permit has been
    made by the STU in respect of any notified area or
E   notified route in pursuance of an approved scheme, the
    STA or the RTA, as the case may be, may grant temporary
    permits to any person in respect of any such notified area
    or notified route subject to the condition that such permit
    shall cease to be effective on the issue of permit to the
F   STU in respect of that area or route. Same is the situation
    in respect of a case where an STU inspite of grant of
    perrnit does not operate the service or surrenders the
    permit granted or not utilizing the permit. In such .a
    situation it should be deemed that no application for
G   permit has. been made by the STU and it is open to the
    RTA to grant temporary permit if there is a temporary
    need. By granting regular permits to the private operators,
    RTA will be upsetting' the ratio fixed under the scheme
    which is legally impermissible. [Paras 23, 25] [271-B; 272-
H   A-E]
 PUNJAB ROADWAYS MOGA THR. ITS GENERAL MANAGER v.        259
          PUNJA SAHIB BUS AND TRANS. CO.

     Adarsh Travels Bus Service and Anr. v, State of UP. and    A
Ors. (1985) 4 SCC 557, U.P. State Road Transport
Corporation, Lucknow v. Anwar Ahmad and Ors. (1997) 3 SCC
191; Ram Krishna Verma v. State of UP. (1992) 2 SCC 620,
referred to.
                                                                B
     1.3. If the public is put to hardship or inconvenience
due to failure on the part of the STUs to operate services
inspite of grant of permits for a considerable long time, it
is always open to the State Government to modify the
scheme and make appropriate changes in the ratio fixed          C
on the basis of passenger road transport needs as
assessed by the State Transport C9mmissioner but such
a power is not conferred on the RTA and till that is done,
no private operator can operate his service on any part
or portion of a notified area or notified route upsetting the
ratio prescribed in the scheme except on a temporary            D
permit granted under the proviso to Section 104 of the
Act. [Para 26] [273-C-E]
    UPSRTC and Another v. Sanjidha Banu and Ors. (2005)
10 SCC 280; M. Madan Mohan Rao & Ors. v. UOI & Ors.             E
(2002) 6 SCC 348; UP. SRTC v. Omaditya Verma (2005) 4
sec 424, relied on.
     2. Article 226 of the Constitution of India confers
extraordinary jurisdiction on the High Court to issue high
prerogative writs for enforcement of fundamental rights         F
or any other purpose, the powers are of course wide and
expansive but not to be exercised as an appellate
Authority re-appreciating the finding of facts recorded by
a Tribunal or an authority exercising quasi judicial
functions. Power is highly discretionary and supervisory        G
in nature. Grant of stage carriage permits is primarily a
statutory function to be discharged by the RTA exercising
powers under Section 72 of the Act and not by the High
Court exercising the Constitutional powers under Article
                                                                H
    260 ·   SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2010] 5 S.C.R.


A 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. A writ Court
  seldom interferes with the orders passed by such
  authorities exercising quasi-judicial functions, unless
  there is serious procedural illegality or irregularity or they
  have acted in excess of their jurisdiction. If there is any
B dispute on the proper implementation of the ratio or
  inclusion or exclusion of any route or area in the Scheme,
  the RTA can always examine the same, if it is moved. The
  direction given by the High Court to the RTA to grant
  regular permits to the private operators, is therefore,,
c patently illegal. [Para 27] [273-F-H; 274-A-C]
                        Case Law Reference:
        (1985) 4 sec 557         referred to          Para 23
        (1997) 3 sec 191         referred to          Para 23
D
        (1992) 2 sec 620         referred to          Para 23
        (2005) 10 sec 280        relied on            Para 26
        c2002) 6 sec 348         relied on            Para 26
E       (2005) 4 sec 424         relied on            Para 26

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    3879 .of 2010.

F       From the Judgment & Order dated 1.12 .2006 at High
    Court of Punjab and Haryanaiat Chandigarh in C.W.P. No.
    11768 of 2005.

                               WITH
G C.A. Nos. 3880, 3881, 3882, 3883, 3884, 3885-3886 of 2010.

        Ajay Pal, Kuldip Singh, R.K. Pandey, T.P. Mishra, Sanjay
    Kayal, H.S. Sandhu for the Appeliant.

        Jawahar Lal Gupta, Rani Chhabra, Mohan Pandey, Rajesh
H
  PUNJAB ROADWAYS MOGA THR. ITS GENERAL MANAGER v.            261
           PUNJA SAHIB BUS AND TRANS. CO.

Sharma, Yogesh Dahiya and Shalu Sharma for the                       A
Respond~nts.              ·
    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
    K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. Leave granted in all these
special leave petitions.                                             B

Facts of the first two appeals.
     2. We will first deal with the first two appeals which arise
out of a common order dated 21.8.2000 passed by the State
Transport Commissioner (in short "the Commissioner")                 C
exercising the powers conferred on tre Regional Transport
Authorities of Jalandhar, Patiala and Ferozpur. The order of the
Commissioner was confirmed by the State Transport Appellate
Tribunal (in short "the Tribunal") vide its order dated 27.4.2005,
but interfered with by the High Court in C.W.P No.8483/2005          D
and C.W.P. No.11768 of 2005 respectively with a positive
direction to the Commissioner to grant Stage.Carriage Permits
to the private operators rejecting the claims of the State
Transport Undertakings (STUs). The legality of the order of the
High Court is under challenge in these two cases filed by the        E
State of Punjab through the Commissioner and the Punjab
Roadways, Moga, represented by its General Manager.

      3. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jalandhar,
published a notice in the Motor Transport Gazette, Weekly,
Chandigarh in its issue dated 22.2.1999 inviting applications        F
for the grant of four Stage Carriage Permits for plying two return
trips gaily in the Pathankot - Faridkot via Mukkerian, Dasuya,
Jalandhar Nakodar, Moga, Talwandi Bhai, Mudki route a
substantial portion of which falls within the National and State
Highways. As per the scheme published on 9th August, 1990            G
(in short the '1990 Scheme') modified by the Punjab
Government on 21.10.1997 (in short the '1997 modified
scheme'), the routes on the National as well as State Highways
have to be shared by the STUs and private operators in a
specified ratio.                                                     H
     262    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2010] 5 S.C.R.


A        4. In response to the notice, 112 applications were
    ·received which included the applications from the General·
     Manager, Punjab Roadways, Moga as well as from the Pepsu
     Road Transport ~orporation, Faridkot, (STUs).

         5. The contents of the applications·were published in the
8
    Motor Transport Gazette Weekly, Chandigarh in its issue dated
    22.4.1999 inviting representations/suggestions from the general
    public, but there was no response.

        6. Out of the 112 applicants, 31 applicants failed to
C respond. 01.,1t of four permits, it was decided by the
  Commissioner that two permits with one return trip daily be
  allotted to STUs and other two trips to the private operators.
  The General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Moga applied for the
  grant of two stag13 carriage permits with Ofle return trip daily in
0 the notified route and the General Manager, Pepsu Road
  Transport Corporation, Faridkot applied for the grant of four
  stage carriage permits for plying,two return trips dai:y on that
  route.

E  .   7. The representatives of the STUs submitted that due
  share of mileage be allotted to them. The Commissioner heard
  the rest of the applicants who had applied for permits in the
  private sector. It was decided that the applications of existing
  operators be not considered in the interest of healthy
F competition and for maintaining balanced transport service and
  also to ensure that monopoly of individuals or a group be not
  allowed to develop in the particular route/ area.

       8. Applications from the new entrants were conside(ed by
  the. Commissioner and it was resolved vide cirde?r dated
G 21.8.2000 to grant one stag~ carriage permit for plying one
  return daily trip each on the notified route to the Punjab
  Roadways, Moga and to Pepsu Road Transport Corporation,
  and one permit to Gurbhajan Singh and Jagdev Singh jointly

H
   PUNJAB ROADWAYS MOGA THR. ITS GENERAL MANAGER v.       263
  PUNJA SAHIB BUS AND TRANS. CO. [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]

 and the other to Metro Transport Registered Sangrur for a             A
 period of five years. The grantees were allowed three months'
 time to obtain the pe_rmits.

       9. Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner, three
  appeals - Appeal Nos.391/2000, 233/2001 and 147/2004
  were preferred by the private applicants before the Tribunal         8
  under Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the
  'Act') challenging the grant of permits to the private operators
  and the STUs. Before the Tribunal, it was represented that STUs
  though granted the permits, were not operating the services
  and, therefore, those permits be granted to the appellants so        C
  that public would not be put to inconvenience. On their request,
· reports were called for from the Region'al Transport Authority
  (in short the 'RTA') to ascertain as to whether the STUs were
  in fact operating services. The SecretarY, RTA, Jalandhar vide
  his reports dated 5.4.2005 and 20.4.2005 reported that the           D
  permit granted to Pepsu Transport Corporation was
  surrendered by it on 1.6.2002 and thatthe Punjab Roadways
  had so far not utilized the permit. The Tribunal considered the
  comparative merits of the applicants and found no illegality in
  the order granting the permits to the private operators and found    E
  no reason to disturb the grant of permits to STUs. Appeal
  No.223/2007 was also rejected on the ground of delay so also
  on the ground that applicant cannot be treated as a new entrant
  since its sister concern was already granted permit. All the three
  appeals were therefore rejected by the Tribunal vide its order       F
  dated 27.4.2005.

      10. Aggrieved by the said order, Majhi Express Transport
 Service Corporation, preferred Writ Petition C.W.P. No.8483/
 2005 and Punja Sahib Bus Transport Corporation preferred
 Writ Petition C.W.P. No.11768 of 2005 before the Punjab and           G
 Haryana High Court. The Writ Petition C.W.P. No.8483/2005
 came up before a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana
 High Court on 24.10.2005. It was represented before the Court
 that since STUs had failed to operate the two permits granted
                                                                       H
     264     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2010] 5 S.C ..R.


·A   to them, those permits be granted to the Writ Petitioner. The
     High Court took the view that the Tribunal was not justified in
     declining grant of permit to the Writ Petitioner on the ground of
     delay and on the ground that its. sister concern had already
    ·been granted a permit on 9.11.2004. Further, the High Court
· 8 also took the view that due 'to non user of the permit by the
     STUs, public will be the suff~rer. The Court noticed that the
     permit granted to STUs was neither utilized nor operated and,
     hence, it was not open to the. STUs to raise any objection
     regarding the grant of permit to the writ petitioner. The High
  C Court, therefore, gave a positive direction to the Commissioner
     to grant one stage carriage permit with half return trip daily to
     the said writ petitioner. The permits granted to the other private
     operators were not interfered with.

        11. C.W.P. No.11768/2005 later came up for hearing
 D before the Division Bench on 1.12.2006 and following the
   judgment in Writ Petition no. 8483/2005, the Court ordered that
   one stage carriage permit be granted to the writ petitioner
   therein also with half return trip daily in the notified route since
   the STUs were not operating the permits granted. Permits
 E granted to the private operators were not interfered with.

         12. Aggrieved by.the judgments in C.W.P. No.8483/2005
     and 11768/2005, the State of Punjab and the Punjab Roadways
     Moga respectively have filed the first two appeals.

 F Facts in the other appeals.
        13. We shall now refer to the facts of the other connected
  appeaJs since some of the issues which arise for consideration
  in all those appeals are common. The Punjab Roadways has
G preferred all these appeals challenging the common judgment
  dated 1.5.2007 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in
  C.W.P. No.11916/2006, CWP No.123/2006, 11332°12006,
  12982/2006, 9085/2005 and 5824't2006. The Punjab
  Roadways was the petitioner in all those writ petitions
  challenging the orders passed by the Tribunal on 28.10.2005,
H
  PUNJAB ROADWAYS MOGA THR. ITS GENERAL MANAGER v. 265
 PUNJA SAHIB BUS AND TRANS. CO. [KS. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) .

17 .12.2004, 25.8.2005, 3.10.2005 and 1.8.2005 directing               A·
grant of permits to private operators in various notified routes
on the ground that Punjab Roadways was not operating
services inspite of grant of permits. In these appeals, the Punjab
Roadways has contended that the Tribunal as well as the High
Court has erred in granting regular permits to the private sector      B
over-looking the claims of STUs in gross violation of 1990
scheme as modified in the year 1997 and the provisions of
Chapter VI of the Act.
      14. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that
the High Court was not justified in directing the Commissioner         C
to grant permits to the private operators on the ground that the
STUs had either not utilized the permits, surrendered the
permits or not applied for the permits. Learned counsel
submitted that substantial portions of the notified route fall under
the National/State Highways and as per the provisions of the           D
1990 scheme as amended in the year 1997 the mileage of
different types of routes in the State of Punjab has to be shared
by the STUs along with private operators in the prescribed ratio
mentioned in the scheme. Learned counsel submitted that the
STUs could not operate services due to insufficiency of fleets         E
and dearth of staff and now STUs are in possession of sufficient
number of buses and are in a position to operate services on
the notified routes. Learned counsel submitted that granting
permits falling in the share of STUs to the private operators
would be against the provisions of the Act and the Rules and           F
the provisions of notified scheme. Learned counsel submitted
that even if STUs had failed to utilize the permits or surrendered
the permits, or had failed to apply for permits on the notified
routes those vacancies could be filled up only by inviting fresh
applications and only temporary permits could be granted in            G
case if there is a public need. Learned counsel submitted that
the Tribunal and the High Court have committed a grave error
in directing the RTA to grant regular permits to the private
operators on the notified routes upsetting the ratio fixed by the
scheme in gross violation of the proviso to Section 104 of the
Act.                                                                   H
    266     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010) 5 S.C.R.


A       15. Mr. Jawahar Lal Gupta, learned senior counsel
  appearing for the contesting respondents submitted that there
  is no illegality in the order passed by the High Court in directing
  the grant of stage carriage permits to the private operators
  since there was failure on the part of STUs in operating the
B services in spite of grant of permits. Learned senior counsel
  referred to Rule 128(5) of the Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules,
  1989 and submitted that if the grantees fail to utilise the permit
  for a period of more than six months, the permit would lapse
  and the grantee is debarred from raising further claims on the
c grant of permit to the other operators. Learned senior counsel
  also submitted that the High Court was justified in directing the
  grant of permits to the private oper,ators under Article 226 of
  the Constitution of India in public interest. Learned seni.or
  counsel also referred to the 1990 scheme and submitted the .
  route i.e. Pathankot - Faridkot does not find a place in the
0
  annexures to scheme and is not a notified route. Further, it was
  also pointed out that the Pathankot - Faridkot is not a monopoly
  route of the STUs and no portion of the route partly overlaps
  any of the monopoly routes. It was also pointed out that with
  reference to the appeal by Punjab Roadways, Nawanshahar,
E that the route in dispute that is Ludhiana to Mahilpur is also not
  a monopoly route and is not a part of the list annexed with the
  1990 scheme. Various other infirmities have also been pointed
  out.

F      16. The first question for our consideration is whether the
  Tribunal and the High Court are justifiea in directing' the
  Commissioner exercising the powers of RTAs to grant regular
  permits to the private operators on the ground that the STUs
  had either failed to utilize the permits granted or surrendered
G the permits or had not applied for the permits in the notified
  routes. In order to examine that question it is necessary to refer
  to the 1990 Scheme as amended in the year 1997.

        17. The Government of Punjab, in exercise of the powers
    conferred under Section 100 of the Act, formulated a scheme
H
 PUNJAB ROADWAYS MOGA THR. ITS GENERAL MANAGER v.           267
PUNJA SAHIB BUS AND TRANS. CO. [KS. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]

so as to provide an efficient, adequate, economical and            A
properly co-coordinated road transport service in the State of
Punjab. Notification to that effect was published in Punjab
Government Gazette (Extra Ordinary ) dated 9th August, 1990
stipulating areas and routes to be operated by the STUs to the
complete or partial exclusion of other persons. Clause 5, 6 and    B
7 of the Scheme are relevant for our purpose and hence
extracted hereunder :-

          (5) All future operations of routes on the National
    Highways falling within the State shall be undertaken by the
    State Transport Undertakings and the private operators in      C
    the ratio of 30:30 which shall be determined on the basis
    of the. passenger road transport needs, as so assessed
    by the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab, from time
    to time. The existing operations of the State Transport
    Undertakings on the National Highways falling within the       D
    State are given in Annexures 'D' and D-1.

          (6) all future operations of routes on the State
    Highways other than the routes specified in clauses 2, 3
    and 4 shall be undertaken by the State Transport               E
    Undertakings and private operators in the ratio of 50:50
    which shall be determined on the basis of the passenger
    road transport needs, as so assessed by the State
    Transport Commissioner, Punjab, from time to time. The
    existing operation of routes of the State Transport
                                                                   F
    Undertakings on the State Highways are given in Annexure
    'E' and 'E-1 '.

          (7) All future operations of routes other than the
    routes specified in clauses 2,3 and 4 on District and other
    roads shall be undertaken by the State Transport               G
    Undertakings and private operators in the ratio of 50:50
    on the basis of the passenger road transport roads, as to
    assessed by the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab,
    from the time to time." [Page 8 of the Written Notes].
                                                                   H
    268     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2010] 5 S.C.R.


A       18. Annexure 'A' of the Scheme deals with monopoly
  routes operated by the STUs viz., Punjab Roadways and Pepsu
  Road Transport Corporation. Annexure 'B' of the Scheme deals
  with the list of National Highways. Annexure 'C' of the Scheme
  deals with a list of State Highways Roads. Annexure 'D' deals
8 with   the list of routes falling on National Highways (Punjab
  Roadways). Annexure 'D-1' deals with list of routes falling on
  National Highways (Pepsu Road Transpor-t Bnrporation).
  Annexure. 'E' deals with list of routes falling on State f:"lighways
  (Punja,b Roadways) and Annexure 'E-1' deals with list of routes
C falling· on State Highways (Pepsu Road Transport Corporation).
  Future operations of services on the above mentioned routes
  have to be undertaken by the STUs and private operators in
  the prescribed ratio mentioned in the Scheme.

          19. The 1990 Scheme was modified by the Government
D of Punjab in exercise of the powers conferred under Section
    102 of the Act and a notification to that effect was published in
    the Punjab Government Gazette (Extraordinary) dated
    21.10.1997. Clause 5 of the 1990 Scheme was amended and
    the ratio 30:30 was substituted by 75:25 and the ratio 50:50
E mentioned in Clauses 6 and 7 was substituted by 50:50 are
    40:60 respectively as per the amended scheme dated
    21.10.1997. The Tribunal in its orders dated 27.04.2005 aswell
    as on. 28.10.2005 .has stated that the routes for which
    applications were preferred by the stus for the grant of
F permits were notified routes under the Scheme. All the parties
    had proceeded as if the routes in question were included in the
    1990 Scheme. Before the TribLihal it was represented by the
    private operators that though the Pepsu Transport Corporation
  , was granted a Stage Carriage Permit on the route notified, the
G same was surrendered by the Corporation on 1.6.2002 and the
· Punjab Roadways though was granted permit had failed to
    utilize the permit. Few other instances were also pointed out
    where inspite of grant of permits the STUs had either
    surrendered the permits or were not operating the permits on
H the routes notified. A copy of such an order dated 19.7.2007
  PUNJAB ROADWAYS MOGA THR. ITS GENERAL MANAGER v. 269
 PUNJA S.'\HIB BUS AND TRANS. CO. [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]

passed by the Secretary RTA, Jullandhar was produced before          A
this Court and it was submitted that Punjab Roadways,
Pathankot had surrendered 29 return trips on the route between
Amritsar and Pathankot. Further it was also contended that due
to surrendering of large number of return trips on the route, the
public of that area was put to considerable hardships and            B
inconvenience. Consequently it was pointed out that there is no
illegality in granting regular permits to the private operators in
the vacancies occurred either due to surrender of permits or
not utilizing the permits or on omission to apply for permits in
the notified routes.                                                 c
     20. The Tribunal in Appeal No. 46 of 2000 and connected
matters, decided on 28.10.2005 has taken a view that where
an STU applies for permit and if it is granted and, thereafter
the STUs fail to operate the services inspite of grant, they will
lose their right and share of the permits unless the route in        D
question is Inter-state or monopoly routes. Further, it was also
held if the permit is not utilized within the maximum period of
six months under Sub-rule 5 of Rule 128 of the Punjab Motor
Vehicles Rules, 1989 the RTA could revoke the sanction of the
permit. Further it was also held in such a case RTA has a right      E
to issue regular permits and not temporary permits as provided
in the proviso to Section 104 of the Act.

      21. We find it difficult to accept the reasoning of the
Tribunal. In our view, there is complete misreading of the           F
provisions of 1990 Scheme as amended and provisions of
Chapter VI of the Act. Provisions of this Chapter confer a
monopoly on the State in respect of transport service to the
partial or complete exclusion of other persons. Section 98 says
that provisions of above mentioned Chapter and the Rules or          G
orders made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding,
anything inconsistent contained in Chapter V or in any other law
for the time being in force or any instrument having effect by
virtue of any such law. Section 99 of the Act deals with
preparation and publication of proposal regarding road               H
    270     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2010] 5 S.C.R.


A transport services of an STU which enables the State
  Government to formulate a proposal for the purpose of providing
  an efficient, adequate, economical and properly co-coordinated
  road transport service, by giving particulars of the nature of the
  service proposed to be rendered, the area or route proposed ·
B to be covered and other relevant particulars respecting thereof
  and the Government is also empowered to publish such a
  proposal in the gazette in public interest. After calling for
  objections to the proposed scheme, and examining the same
  the scheme has to be published in accordance with the
c provisions of Section 100 of the Act. The scheme once
  published is law and chapter VI has an overriding effect on
  Chapter V of the Act and it operates against everyone unless
  it is modified or cancelled by the State Government.

         22. The scheme also provides for a ratio with regard to
D   the grant of permits on the notified routes between STUs and
    private operators which is fixed based on the assessment .
    made by the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab on the
    basis of the passenger road transport needs which is legally
    binding on all. The provisions of the scheme including the list
E   of routes mentioned in the various annexures, and the ratio fixed
    are statutory in character which cannot be tinkered with by the
    RTAs and have overriding effect over the powers of RTAs under
    Chapter V of the Act. The power to cancel the Scheme or
    modify the Scheme rests with the State Government under
F   Section 102 of the Act and the RTA and the Tribunal have
    committed a grave error in tampering with the Scheme as well
    as disturbing the ratio fixed by the Scheme by granting regular
    permits to the private sector from the quota earmarked for
    STUs. Once a scheme is approved and published, private
G   operators have no right to claim regular permits to operate their
    vehicles in the notified area, route or portion thereof upsetting
    the ratio fixed. Since the scheme makes provision for partial
    exclusion, the private operators are not completely excluded,
    they may get regular permits on the notified route or portion
H   thereof in accordance with the terms and conditions laid down
 PUNJAB ROADWAYS MOGA THR. ITS GENERAL MANAGER v.       271
PUNJA SAHIB BUS AND TRANS. CO. [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]

in the scheme and within the quota earmarked for them.               A

     23. Therefore, a combined reading of Sections 99, 100
and 104 in the light of Section 2(38) of the Act, makes it clear
that once a scheme is published under Section 100 in relation
to any area or route or portion thereof, whether in complete or
                                                                     8
partial exclusion of other persons, no persons other than STUs
may operate on the notified area or route except as provided
in the scheme itself. Reference can be made to the decisions
of this Court in Adarsh Travels Bus Service and Anr. vs. State
of U.P. and Ors., (1985) 4 SCC 557, U.P. State Road
Transport Corporation, Lucknow vs. Anwar Ahmad and Ors.              C
(1997) 3 SCC 191, Ram Krishna Verma vs State of UP.
(1992) 2 sec 620.

     24. Section 104 of the Act specifically restricts the grant
of permits in respect of notified area or notified route. The said   D
provision is extracted hereunder:-

    Restriction on grant of permits in respect of a notified
    area or notified route-Where a scheme has been
    published under sub-section (3) of section 100 in respect        E
    of any notified area or notified route, the State Transport
    Authority or the Regional Transport Authority, as the case
    may be, shall not grant any permit except in accordance
    with the provisions of the scheme:

           Provided that where no application for a permit has       F
    been made by the State Transport Undertaking in respect
    of any notified area nor notified route in pursuance of an
    approved scheme, the State Transport Authority or the
    Regional Transport Authority, as the case may be, may
    grant temporary permits to any person in respect of such         G
    notified area, or notified route subject to the condition that
    such permit shall cease to be effective on the issue of a
    permit to the State transport undertaking in respect of that
    area or route.
                                                                     H
    272      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 5 S.C.R.


A      25. The above mentioned provision states where a scheme
  has been published under Sub-section 3 of Section 190 in
  respect of any notified area or notified route, STA or the RTA
  as the case may be shall not grant any permit except in
  accor,d~nce with the provisions of the Scheme. An exception
B has/been carved out in the proviso to Section 104 stating,
  w/1ere no application for permit has been made by the STU in
  respect of any notified area or notified route in pursuance of
  an approved scheme, the STA or the RTA, as the case may
  be, may grant temporar,y permits to any person in respect of
c any such notified area or notified route subject to the condition
  that such permit shall cease to be effective on the issue of
  permit to the STU in respect of that area or route. In our view
  same is the situation in respect of a case where an STU inspite
  of grant of permit does not operate the service or surrenders
0 the permit granted or not utilizing the permit. In such a situation
  it should be deemed that no applic~tion for permit has been
  made by the STU and it is open to the RTA to grant temporar,y
  permit if there is a temporar,y need. By granting regular permits
  to the private operators RTA will be upsetting the ratio fixed
E under the scheme which is legally impermissible. In Anwar
  Ahmad (supra) this Court had occasion to examine the scope
  of the proviso to Section 104 and held as follows:-

                 "it would, therefore, be seen that where the scheme
          has been published under sub-section (3) of Section 100
F         in respect of any notified area or notified route, the State
          Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority, as
          the case may be, shall not grant any permit except in
          accordance with the provisions of the scheme. Thus, the
          appellant-Corporation has the exclusive right or monopoly
G         to ply their stage, carriages and obtain the required permit
          as per the scheme. The proviso gives only a limited breath
          of life, namely, until the Corporation puts the vehicles on
          the notified routes as per the scheme, temporar,y permits
          may be granted to private operators. Thereby, it would be
H
 PUNJAB ROADWAYS MOGATHR. ITS GENERAL MANAGER v.              213
PUNJA SAHIB BUS AND TRANS. CO. [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.)

    clea~ that temporary inconvenience to traveling public is        A
    sought to be averted till the permits are taken and vehicles
    are put on the route by the appellant. Therefore, the
    temporary permits will have only limited breath of life.
    Private operators are attempting to wear the mask of
    inconvenience of traveling public to infiltrate into forbidden   B
    notifiea area, route or portion thereof to sabotage the
    scheme ....."

      26. We may point out if the public is put to hardship or
inconvenience due to failure on the part of the STUs to operate
services inspite of grant of permits for a considerable long time,   C
it is always open to the State Government to modify the
scheme and make appropriate changes in the ratio fixed on
the basis of passenger road transport needs as assessed by
the State Transport Commissioner but such a power is not
conferred on the RTA and till that is done no private operator       D
can operate his service on any part or portion of a notified area
or notified route upsetting the ratio prescribed in the scheme
except on a temporary permit granted under the proviso to
Section 104 of the Act. Reference can be made to the
judgments of this court in UPSRTC and Another vs. Sanjidha           E
Banu and Ors. (2005) 10 SCC 280; M. Madan Mohan Rao
& Ors. Vs. UO/ & Ors. (2002) 6 SCC 348; U.P. SRTC vs.
 Omaditya Verma (2005) 4 SCC 424 for understanding the
general purport of such Schemes and the provisions of the Act.
                                                                     F
      27. Article 226 of the Constitution of India confers extra
ordinary jurisdiction on the High Court to issue high prerogative
writs for enforcement of fundamental rights or any other
purpose, the powers are of course wide and expansive but not
to be exercised as an appellate Authority re-appreciating the        G
finding of facts recorded by a Tribunal or an authority exercising
quasi judicial functions. Power is highly discretionary and
supervisory in nature. Grant of stage carriage permits is
primarily a statutory function to be discharged by the RTA
exercising powers under-Section 72 of the Act and not by the
                                                                     H
    274       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   (2010] 5 S.C.R.


A High Court exercising the Constitutional powers under Article
  226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. A writ Court seldom
  interferes with the orders passed by such authorities exercising
  quasi-judicial functions, unless there is serious procedural
  illegality or irregularity or they have acted in excess of tbeir
B jurisdiction. If there is any dispute on the proper implementation
  of the ratio or inclusion or exclusion of any route or area in the
  Scheme, the RTA can always examine the same, if it is moved.
  The direction given by the High Court to the RTA to grant regular
  permits to the private operators, is therefore, patently illegal.
c          28. We therefore, allow all these Civil Appeals as follows:-

           (i) The judgments of the High Court in C.W.P. No.8483/
           2005 and in C.W.P. No.11768 of 2005 are set aside;

0          (ii) The order dated 21.08.2000, passed by the
           Commissioner affirmed by the order dated 27.4.2005 of
           the State Transport Appellate Tribunal is upheld;

           (iii) The common judgment of the High Court dated
           1.5.2007 in C.W.P. No.11916 of 2006 and connected
E          cases and also the orders dated 28.10.2005, 17.12.2004,
           25.8.2005, 3.10.2005 and 1.8.2005 passed by the
           Commissioner directing grant of regular permits to the
           private operators are set aside.

F          (iv) This judgment would not stand in the way of RTAs in
           granting temporary permits if there is temporary need in
           the notified routes included in the 1990 scheme as
           amended in the year 1997.

    D.G.                                       Appeals disposed of.