C.W.P. No.1731 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.1731 of 2010 Date of Decision.08.04.2010 The Aradhana Sarswati Cooperative Transport Society Limited, Aradana, District Karnal thorugh its President Jai Bhagwan Singh ........Petitioner Versus The Deputy Commissioner Rohtak-cum-Chairman, Regional Transport Authority, Rohtak Division at Rohtak and others ....Respondents Present: Mr.Lekh Raj Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ravi Dutt Sharma, DAG, Haryana. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The writ petition challenges the order issued by the Regional Transport Authority rejecting the claim for a change in route permit on the ground that a new Transport Policy was being finalized and hence it is declined. After filing the petition, the contention on behalf of the respondents is that the change in the route, which the petitioner is canvassing for falls in an area beyond 24 kms and therefore, it is not possible to accede to his request. It is also contended that certain portions of the route, which the petitioner makes a claim, are not motorable and by virtue of the inaccessibility through certain portions of the route, yet another C.W.P. No.1731 of 2010 -2- portion of the route for which a permit is granted is also not being operated. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the rejection of the petitioner's plea for change in route cannot be made on a basis that there is a new transport policy on the anvil. In my view, the petitioner's claim has to be only considered in the light of the existing scheme, which is available and a decision cannot be deferred for the arrival of a new transport policy. Learned counsel appearing for the State disputes the contention raised by the petitioner that certain portions of the existing route are not motorable. It is also contended by him that the change in route sought for exceeds 24 kms. The change in the route that is sought for, according to him, literally alters even the terminal point and it is, therefore, not possible to accede to the petitioner's plea. 3. The order in challenge must be sustained by the reasoning that it contains and it could not be buttressed through reasonings in the pleadings which are not there in the impugned order. The written statements takes up pleas, which are wholly new and which are not the basis for the rejection of the claim of the petitioner. The impugned order is quashed and the matter is remitted to the Regional Transport Authority for passing of fresh order in the light of the existing policy. This order does not deal with the merits of the claim of the petitioner other than stating that the impugned order cannot be sustained for the reasons which are set out. The Regional Transport Authority will now to give a decision within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order and the C.W.P. No.1731 of 2010 -3- petitioner will have opportunity to put in appearance to state his case in person or through representative. The ultimate decision shall be taken in the light of existing policy and as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988. 4. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE April 08, 2010 Pankaj*