IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.3108 of 2007 Date of decision: 13.8.2008 M/s Buzrak Bus Service Regd., Samana. -----Petitioner. v. Additional State Transport Commissioner, Punjab etc. -----Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present:- Mr. H.S. Sawhney, Sr. Advocate with Mr. B.S. Giri, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Suveer Sehgal, Addl. A.G., Punjab for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Jagdish Marwaha, Advocate for respondent No.3. ---- ORDER: The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab, whereby diversion and extension of route granted in favour of the petitioner by the State Transport Commission was set-aside, inter-alia, on the ground that the same was in conflict with route formulated vide order dated 22.2.2005. C.W.P. No.3108 of 2007 Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that formulation of route under Section 68(3)(ca) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “the Act”) cannot control the exercise of power conferred under Section 80 of the Act, to grant permits. The said provision, being a departure from the earlier corresponding provision, has to be given effect to and grant of route permit cannot be held to be illegal on the only ground that it was in conflict with the route formulated under Section 68(3)(ac) of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a judgment of the Division Bench of Kerala High Court in Premlal v. Government of Kerala 1(2005) ACC 6 (DB), wherein the question for consideration was whether a stage permit could be granted before route formulation under Section 68(3) (ca) of the Act. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents (STU) relies on a Division Bench judgment of this Court dated March 12, 2008 in C.W.P. No.3932 of 2007 (Kesar Singh v. State Transport Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh), wherein it was observed:- “Further, the route, on which the extension has been sought, is not a formulated route and is not covered by the Notification dated 22.2.2005, which was issued by the State Government in exercise of Clause (ca) of sub-section (3) of Section 68 of the Act. The purpose of issuing the said 2 C.W.P. No.3108 of 2007 Notification was to avoid any threat being caused by the operators of the mini bus permits to the operators of the regular stage carriage permits. This fact has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the route on which the extension has been sought is not a formulated route. In our opinion, as per the provisions of sub- section (3) of Section 80 of the Act, an application for extension or alteration of route shall be treated as an application for the grant of a new permit, and if the government has formulated the route of the mini buses by issuing a notification dated 22.2.2005 under Section 68(3)(ca) of the Act, then no extension of the route can be granted contrary to the said notification. Since the proposed extension of the route does not fall under any of the formulated routes prescribed in the aforesaid notification, therefore, in our opinion, the Appellate Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the extension of the route having been allowed by the Regional Transport Authority is in violation of the notification dated 22.2.2005 as also the provisions of Clause (4) of the modified Transport Scheme dated 21.10.1997.” We find that the judgment relied upon on behalf of the petitioner is distinguishable inasmuch as in that case, route formulation had not been completed. Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court fully applies to the present case. 3 C.W.P. No.3108 of 2007 In the present case, though route formulation was completed after the date of grant of permit, the same has been rightly taken into account by the Tribunal. In view of above, the impugned order of the Tribunal has to be upheld. The petition is dismissed. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE August 13, 2008 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) ashwani JUDGE 4