IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.774 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 6.7.2010 The Billa Cooperative Transport Society Ltd. -----Appellant. Vs. The Guru Govind Cooperative Transport Society Ltd. & others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. Lekh Raj Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge, allowing the writ petition of the respondent and permitting extension of route permit. 2. Case of the writ petitioner was that it was allowed extension of route permit from Farukh Nagar to Gurgaon via Civil Hospital, Buteshwar Mandir, which was a distance of 23.6 kms, which was permissible as per the scheme of the transport authority. However, the permit was cancelled at the instance of the petitioner by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in revision petition under Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by L.P.A. No.774 of 2010 giving a finding that distance involved was more than 24 kms. which was the upper limit for extension. 3. Learned Single Judge held the claim of the writ petitioner to be justifiable in view of the report submitted by the Executive Engineer which was to the effect that distance of extended route was less than 24 kms. In view of the said report, the permit was ordered to be restored and order of the revisional authority was set aside. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that since the extension of route permit granted to the respondent-writ petitioner was cancelled on its revision, the appellant should have been given opportunity of objecting to the report. 6. We are unable to accept the submission. The respondent was duly represented before the learned Single Judge and submission, if any, against the report could have been put forward before learned Single Judge. There is nothing to show that learned Single Judge disallowed any argument or objection being raised on behalf of the appellant. There is, thus, no ground to interfere with the view taken by learned Single Judge. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE July 06, 2010 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 2