IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 16009 of 2011 Date of Decision: 30.08.2011 New Dhillon Roadways Regd. Mansa ..Petitioner Versus State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab 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, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab has accepted notice on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, present petition can be disposed of at admission stage. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 6.6.2011 (Annexure P/2) passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), whereby, the Tribunal, while rejecting the petitioner's appeal, has refused to take into consideration various documents which the petitioner had placed on record of the appeal. Suffice it to note here that the petitioner applied for renewal of regular stage carriage permit for running its bus on Talwandi Sabo - Kalawala route. Under section 81(4)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the petitioner was required to supply the following documents along with his application:- 1. No objection certificate from the concerned officer. 2. A certificate, as envisaged under Section 81(4)(b) of the Act from the concerned District Transport Officer. CWP No. 16009 of 2011 -2- 3. A certificate of fitness of the vehicle, duly verified by the Motor Vehicles Inspector. 4. Upto date Tax Clearance Certificate from the concerned District Transport Officer. The petitioner failed to attach these documents and the application for renewal of the permit was accordingly rejected by the competent authority. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. Along with the appeal, the petitioner appended the requisite documents but the Tribunal has refused to look into the same on the premise that these documents same ought to have been appended with the application for renewal of the permit. Having heard Learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned order passed by theTribunal, I am of the considered view that the same cannot sustain in law. The documents attached along with the appeal, at the best, could be taken as a prayer to lead additional evidence. The Tribunal could also remand the case to the Regional Transport Authority, respondent No.2, for fresh adjudication. For the reasons afore-stated, the orders passed by the Tribunal as well as the RTA are set aside with liberty to the petitioner to move a fresh application before the RTA along with requisite documents. If any such application is moved by the petitioner, the RTA shall consider and dispose of the same at its own merits, in accordance with law. (ALOK SINGH) JUDGE 30.08.2011 som