IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 5670 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : 04.04.2008 M/s Bhadaur Bus Service Regd. Barnala .... PETITIONER Versus State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab and another ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr. P.S. Bawa, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral ) The petitioner, who was having three stage carriage permits bearing No. 110, 23/RK/71, 107 on Barnala-Sangrur via Dhanaula (three return trips) and one stage carriage permit bearing No. 46 ST on Barnala- Bhikhi route (one return trip), has filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 22.9.2006, passed by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Patiala, dismissing the application of the petitioner for renewal of the aforesaid four permits, on the ground that the petitioner has failed to fulfill the condition of the renewal, as the petitioner has not submitted the Tax Clearance Certificate and other required documents; and the order dated 23.8.2006, whereby the CWP No. 5670 of 2008 -2- appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order has been dismissed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh, while observing as under : “12. Not only the respondent provided two opportunities to the appellant to produce the requisite documents including the Tax Clearance Certificate, the certificate regarding the passing of the vehicles and the certificate to be issued by the District Transport Officer under section 81 (4) (b), the appellant had the sufficient time at its disposal after the passing of the impugned order on 27.9.2006 to produce the same before the Tribunal, but instead of producing the same, it is represented by the learned counsel for the appellant that as a matter of fact there is a dispute with regard to the liability of the appellant in the payment of the taxes on account of the differences of the mileage. That being so, the appellant has not complied with the requirements of sub-section (4) of Section 81 of the Act, so as to enable the Transport Authority to grant the renewal of the permits. I am, therefore, of the considered view that no case is made out for remanding the case to the respondent because there is nothing on record to show that the appellant has complied with the requirements of sub-section (4) of Section 81 of the Act and the matter can be re-considered. In other words, there are no merits in the appeal.” CWP No. 5670 of 2008 -3- We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through both the impugned orders. Since the petitioner has not complied with the condition for renewal of the route and till date, he is in arrears of taxes, therefore, we are not inclined to entertain this petition. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE April 04, 2008 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) ndj JUDGE