The Punjab and Haryana high court has ordered release of 32 buses of Orbit Aviation Private Limited, a firm owned by the Badal family, and directed the Punjab transport department to permit them to ply provisionally on designated routes.
The high court bench of justice Ajay Tewari and justice Pankaj Jain acted on the plea of Orbit Aviation Private Limited in which decision to cancel the permits was challenged. The court posted the matter for further hearing on November 29 and sought the government’s response by then.
On Monday, the high court had put transport minister Amrinder Singh Raja Warring on notice on a similar plea from the firm owned by SAD leader Hardeep Singh Dhillon against cancellation of route permits.
The Orbit Aviation had told the court that on October 11, the transport department had permitted to make the payment of the government dues of ₹77.15 lakh in four monthly instalments of ₹19.28 lakh. The first instalment was paid but a week later, permission to pay in instalments was revoked and the petitioner was directed to pay the taxes in lump sum. By November 15, the entire tax was paid for up to November 30 but on November 12, the 32 permits of the petitioner were cancelled, senior advocate Puneet Bali had told court, alleging that it was a case of “political vendetta”.
State’s advocate general DS Patwalia had told the court that after the October 18 order, the firm did not pay a single penny nor did it make any application informing the government that it was intending to make the full payment. Hence, the state was constrained to cancel the permit. It was further told that there is no provision in the Act or the scheme for revocation of cancellation of permit and though the court in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction can do so, but the power could be served only if the petition is to be finally heard and allowed, if at all.
{{/usCountry}}State’s advocate general DS Patwalia had told the court that after the October 18 order, the firm did not pay a single penny nor did it make any application informing the government that it was intending to make the full payment. Hence, the state was constrained to cancel the permit. It was further told that there is no provision in the Act or the scheme for revocation of cancellation of permit and though the court in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction can do so, but the power could be served only if the petition is to be finally heard and allowed, if at all.
{{/usCountry}}The court observed that the state’s argument would not bar the court from even granting an interim relief. “In the present case, the position that has emerged is that an order allowing the petitioner to pay instalments was passed; the first instalment was paid; but the order was withdrawn without even issuing any notice to the petitioner and without assigning any reason,” the court said, adding that once the firm had been permitted to make the payment in instalments, a notice must have been issued for withdrawing that order.