CWP No.11928 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.11928 of 2011 Date of decision: 12.07.2011 Dhillon Transport Regd. Mansa ....Petitioner Versus Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Bathinda and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. P.S. Bawa, Advocate, for the petitioner. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL) Notice of motion. On being asked, Mr. Jaswinder Singh, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, has accepted notice on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2. There is no need to serve notice to respondents No.3 to 6, who are the private operators. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage. Undisputedly, petitioner has moved applications for renewal of his permits for the following routes: - Sr. No. Name of the route Permit No. R/Ts Date of expiry Date of receipt of application 1 Mansa to Gidderbaha 46/Reg/76 & 183/Reg/89 1 21.3.11 04/03/11 CWP No.11928 of 2011 -2- Sr. No. Name of the route Permit No. R/Ts Date of expiry Date of receipt of application 2 Jhunir to Bhagi Bander via Sardulgarh 812/63 1 21.3.11 04/03/11 3 Mansa to Bathinda via Jhunir 155/Reg/78 2 21.3.11 4.3.11 4 Mansa to Bhagi Bander via Talwandi Sabo 106/RK/73 4 21.3.11 4.3.11 Applications for renewal came up for hearing before respondent No.1 on 7.4.2011. Perusal of the impugned order dated 25.4.2011 reveals that applications moved by the petitioner for renewal of aforesaid permits were rejected on the ground that petitioner is the defaulter of Government taxes, therefore, he is not entitled for the renewal of the permits. Record further reveals that petitioner had already filed appeal under Section 12 of the Punjab Motor Vehicle Taxation Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') challenging the demand of Rs.22,49,651/-, which is pending disposal. Learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly submitted that officer hearing the appeal under Section 12 of the Act is the same officer i.e. Secretary RTA Bathinda, therefore, without deciding the appeal on the question as to whether petitioner is defaulter he ought not to have rejected the applications seeking renewal of the permits. Mr. Jaswinder Singh, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, has very fairly contended that if question was raised before the CWP No.11928 of 2011 -3- RTA that applicant seeking renewal is not the defaulter and appeal against the outstanding demand is pending disposal, he ought to have decided the appeal first before arriving at the conclusion that petitioner is the defaulter and some taxes are outstanding against the petitioner. Considering totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, petition is allowed. Order impugned dated 25.4.2011 is quashed. Respondent No.1 is hereby directed to decide the applications seeking renewal of the permits in accordance with law after decision in appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of the Act. Decision in appeal under Section 12 of the Act shall be taken within 90 days from the date certified copy of this order is placed before the authorities; thereafter applications seeking renewal shall be decided within 60 days. (Alok Singh) Judge July 12, 2011 R.S.