IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.3605 of 2009 Date of decision: March 6, 2009. Keshav Singh ...Petitioner(s) v. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 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? Present: Shri Onkar Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): Notice of motion to respondents No.1 to 3 only. Shri G.S. Attariwala, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on their behalf. In view of the nature of the order which I propose to pass, there is no necessity to call for the counter affidavit from the said respondents. Since no view on merits of the petitioner's claim vis-a-vis the private respondents is being expressed herein-after, I do not deem it necessary to issue notice of motion to respondents No.5 to 7 also. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 21/11/2008 (Annexure P-3) passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab, whereby its appeal has been dismissed as infructuous on the plea that the three permits in dispute have already been allotted to the appellants in appeals No.236, 244 and 450 of 2008. The petitioner's appeal was bearing No.681 of 2008. It transpires that three route permits were to be allotted on Hoshiapur-Anandpur Sahib via Jahan Khelan, Chak Sadh, Una, Mehatpur, Nangal route. These permits were granted in favour of the Punjab Roadways, Nangal Depot and Hardev Singh son of Chain Singh, resident of VPO Rurki Khas, Tehsil Garh Shankar, District Hoshiarpur. The above named allottees did not lift the permits and the same remained un-utilized. After a long spell, the unsuccessful applicants, including respondents No.5 to 7, and the petitioner filed their respective appeals before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab. The Tribunal allowed appeals No.236, 244 and 450 of 2008 filed by respondents No.5 to 7 respectively on 19.8.2008 and granted unlifted/unutilized permits in their favour. When the appeal filed by the petitioner, bearing No.681 of 2008, came up for hearing on 21.11.2008, the Tribunal has dismissed the same as infructuous on the ground that all the three permits have already been granted. Having heard Learned Counsel for the parties at some length, I am of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal cannot sustain in law. Once there were more applicants than the available permits, it was imperative upon the Tribunal to determine their comparative merit and then decide to whom these permits ought to have been allotted. ` Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that since the claim of the petitioner vis-a-vis respondents No.5 to 7 has not been considered on merit, he is willing to implead them as party respondents before the Tribunal. For the reasons afore-stated, this writ petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 21.11.2008 passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal to decide the same afresh, in accordance with law. The petitioner, if so advised, may implead respondents No.5 to 7 before the Tribunal. Dasti. March 6, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge