IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 6600 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : 23.04.2008 Gurpreet Singh .... PETITIONER Versus The State Transport Appellate Tribuanl, Punjab, Chandigarh and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Ms. Malkiat Mann, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. In this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.4.2001, passed by the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab, exercising the powers of Regional Transport Authority, Patiala (hereinafter referred to as `the RTA') as well as the order dated 14.11.2005, passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as `the STAT'), whereby his appeal against the aforesaid order has been dismissed. In the present case, the RTA invited applications for the grant of six stage carriage permits for plying six return trips daily on Mohali- Faridkot via Kharar, Morinda, Samrala, Ludhiana, Jagraon, Moga, Talwandi CWP No. 6600 of 2008 -2- Bhai route (hereinafter referred to as `the route in question'), the single length of which is 219 Kms. In this regard, a notice was got published in the Motor Transport Gazette, Weekly, Chandigarh, dated 22.4.2000. Since the route in question falls on the State Highways, therefore, under the Transport Scheme dated 9.8.1990, the mileage on the route is to be shared by the State Transport Undertakings (hereinafter referred to as `the STUs') and the private operators in the ratio of 40:60. As such, the RTA decided to grant two stage carriage permits with two return trips daily to the STUs and the remaining four permits with four return trips daily to the private operators. In response to the said notice, 183 applications were received. The RTA, while taking into consideration the merits and de-merits of all the eligible applicants, granted one permit each to the Punjab Roadways, Chandigarh and the PRTC, Faridkot, the STUs, and the remaining four permits were granted to respondents No.4 to 7, the private operators. Against the said decision, four applicants, including the petitioner, filed appeals before the STAT, which were dismissed. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed while coming to the conclusion that he does not possess better merits and qualifications than the persons, to whom the permits have been granted in the category of private operators. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the RTA and the STAT have not properly appreciated the merits and qualifications of the petitioner. She submits that the petitioner was the sole applicant in the category of dependent of a freedom fighter. However, this aspect has not been taken into consideration by both the authorities. Learned counsel CWP No. 6600 of 2008 -3- further submits that the petitioner was also unemployed and in spite of that fact, he was not granted the permit. The petitioner was also possessing HTV licence, but his case was not properly considered. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the impugned order, we do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order in exercise of the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Both the authorities have compared the inter-se merits and qualifications of all the eligible applicants and thereafter after coming to a conclusion that respondents No.4 to 7 are better applicants granted the permits in their favour in the category of private operators. Such grant of permits cannot be set aside in the writ jurisdiction merely on the ground that according to the petitioner, he is more suitable applicant. The petitioner may be the dependent of a freedom fighter, but none of the permits was reserved for a particular category. Therefore, merely on account of that fact alone, the petitioner cannot be granted the permit. In our opinion, both the authorities have fairly considered the merits and qualifications of all the eligible applicants and thereafter took a conscious decision, which does not require any interference in the writ jurisdiction. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE April 23, 2008 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) ndj JUDGE