CWP No.8732 of 2010.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.8732 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 22.09.2010 **** Mangat Singh & Anr. . . . . . Petitioner VS. State Transport Commissioner, Punjab & Anr. . . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. Rajinder Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. H.S. Brar, Addl. AG Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioners impugn the order dated 12.04.2010 (Annexure P4) passed by the State Transport Appellate Authority, Punjab to the extent it has directed the Regional Transport Authority, Ferozepur (RTA) to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as “other applicants, who applied for the permit” before passing the fresh speaking order as per law. CWP No.8732 of 2010.doc - 2 – (2). Briefly stated, the facts are that the applications were invited for the regular stage carriage permit with two return trip daily on Moga to Salabatpura route and in response thereto, 33 applications (including of the petitioners’) were received. All the 33 applications were turned down by the Regional Transport Authority. (3). Aggrieved, the petitioners preferred the statutory Appeal No.224 of 2008 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab, which has been allowed vide the impugned order dated 12.04.2010 (Annexure P4). However, while remanding the matter back to the RTA, Ferozpur, a direction to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as “other applicants, who had applied for the permit”, has also been issued. (4). The grievance of the petitioners is that the other applicants are not entitled to be heard as they have surrendered their right after the rejection of their applications by the RTA. (5). There appears to be substance in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners as in somewhat similar circumstances, a Division Bench of this CWP No.8732 of 2010.doc - 3 – Court vide order dated May 24, 2003 passed in CWP No.1402 of 2003 titled as Amloh Bus Service (Regd.) v. State Transport Commissioner, Punjab and others, has confined the claim of re-consideration qua the applicant/petitioners only who had successfully agitated the matter before the Tribunal. (6). The said view was reiterated by an another Division Bench of this Court vide order dated July 13, 2006 passed in CWP No.3613 of 2005 (Majhi Motors (Regd.) Patiala v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab and others) holding as follows:- xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx “It is contention of counsel for the petitioner that once qua the other applicants, order, passed by the State Transport Commissioner, has become final, it was not open to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal to interfere and grant any relief to them. In support of his contention counsel has placed reliance upon judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Cumbum Roadways (P) Ltd. Somu Transport CWP No.8732 of 2010.doc - 4 – (P) Ltd. AIR 1966 Supreme Court 1366, and also a Single Bench judgement of this Court in M/S Mohali Bus Service Regd. v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, AIR 1992 Punjab and Haryana 162. Counsel states that in view of the ratio of the judgements, referred to above, order passed by the State Appellate Tribunal deserves to be rectified and that the relief be granted only to the petitioner and not to the other applicants. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx “This Court is of the opinion that the controversy in the present case is fully covered by the ratio of the judgements, referred to above. Contention of counsel for the respondent that the appeal, filed by the petitioner, was not competent is liable to be rejected as the State has not challenged the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal.” xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (7). For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 12.04.2010 (Annexure P4) is modified to the extent that the Regional Transport Authority shall consider the CWP No.8732 of 2010.doc - 5 – claim of those applicants only who were party before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. (8). Ordered accordingly. (9). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 22.09.2010 vishal shonkar