IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.8206 of 2009 Date of Decision: 18.08.2009 Dilpreet Singh Petitioner Versus The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab and others Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH Present: Mr.Sushil Saini, Advocate for the petitioner ….. Jasbir Singh, J.(Oral) This writ petition has been filed to lay challenge to an order dated 27.9.2006 (P1), vide which, prayer of the petitioner, for grant of two regular stage carriage permits, with two return trips daily on Bathinda to Jakhal via Mansa route, was rejected. Further challenge is to the order dated 4.11.2008 (P2), dismissing an appeal filed by the petitioner. Heard. Record reveals that on receipt of an application, for grant of above said route permits, the matter was considered by the competent authority and after discussing merits and demerits of the contending applicants, order dated 27.9.2006 (P1) was passed. The petitioner went in appeal, which was dismissed by the appellate authority, by observing as under:- Civil Writ Petition No.8206 of 2009 “The perusal of the impugned order shows that the ld. Competent authority, after giving the facts of the case and after having gone through the applicants of all the applicants, came to the conclusion that one permit should be granted to an existing operator and the one in favour of a new entrant. Respondent No.3, whose grant is under challenge, is an existing operator. The appellant is also an existing operator being partner of M/s Hargobind Bus Service having one permit, one bus with 250 Kms. The respondent Garg Motors Regd. Patran is having four permits five buses with 1346 Kms and traffic density of 256 Kms. The competent authority after having considered the merits of all the applicants, including that of the appellant as well as of respondent No.3 had come to the conclusion that respondent No.3 was having four permits five houses with 1346 Kms and it’s traffic density was 256 Kms, as aforesaid. The dossier of the company was also seen which exhibited that this company was having one spare vehicle and thus could provide immediate bus service to the traveling public. The track record of operation and payment of taxes of the company was also found up to the mark. As such, it was rightly found to be having better merits than other existing operators including that of the appellant. The order passed, granting the permit to respondent No.3, was well considered and well reasoned. No inference is warranted in the same. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed being without any merit. Record of the RTA be returned.” 2 Civil Writ Petition No.8206 of 2009 This Court feels that the order passed is perfectly justified. It has come on record that respondent No.4 was a better candidate. Taking note of its capacity to provide bus immediately, route permit was granted in its favour. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the route permits, earlier allotted to the respondent No.4 were sold by it, however, neither before the competent authority/ appellate authority nor before this Court, any proof has been furnished in that regard. No case is made out for interference. Dismissed. 18.08.2009 (Jasbir Singh) gk Judge 3