IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 11331 of 2006 DATE OF DECISION : 29.02.2008 State of Punjab .... PETITIONER Versus Libra Highways Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr. A.G. Masih, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for the petitioner. Mr. H.S. Sawhney, Senior Advocate, with Mr. B.S. Giri, Advocate, for respondents No.1 & 2. Mr. Baldev Kapoor, Advocate, for respondent No.3. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The State of Punjab through the Joint Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Transport, Chandigarh, has filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 26.10.2005, passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh – respondent No.4 (hereinafter referred to as `the Appellate Tribunal'), whereby three appeals filed by the private operators (respondents No.1 to 3 herein) have been allowed and each of them has been granted one CWP No. 11331 of 2006 -2- regular stage carriage permit with half a trip daily on the Patiala-Ferozepur via Sirhind, Ludhiana, Moga route. Counsel for respondents No.1 to 3 have raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the State of Punjab is not competent to invoke the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, challenging the order of the Appellate Tribunal, as it was neither an applicant for grant of permit nor was a party in the appeal filed before the Appellate Tribunal. In support of their contention, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3 have relied upon a decision of this Court in Gill Bus Service (Regd.) Amritsar v. State of Punjab through Secretary, Punjab Transport Department, Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh and another, 1992 (1) PLR 678, wherein it was held that a writ petition filed by the State of Punjab at the behest of the Regional Transport Authority was not competent, as the State of Punjab was not a party aggrieved as there was no question of grant of a permit in favour of the State of Punjab. It was held that in the matter of grant of permits under Section 47 of the Act on a particular route, only such party could challenge the order of the RTA or the order of the Appellate Tribunal, who is aggrieved by such an order, but the State of Punjab cannot be said to be an aggrieved party. Counsel for the petitioner-State of Punjab could not controvert the aforesaid legal position. In view of the above, we dismiss this writ petition filed by the State of Punjab, on the ground that the petitioner cannot be said to be an CWP No. 11331 of 2006 -3- aggrieved party against the impugned order and it is not competent to challenge the said order. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE February 29, 2008 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) ndj JUDGE