Civil Writ Petition No. 1928 of 1991 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 1928 of 1991 Date of Decision: 5.7.2011 Randhir Bus Service Amloh through its Managing Partner Shri Baljit Singh ..Petitioner Versus The State Transport Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. Baldev Kapoor, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S.Sahu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for respondents no. 1 and 2. Mr. H.S.Sawhney, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rajinder Sharma, Advocate for respondents no.3 and 4. RAJIVE BHALLA, J (ORAL) The petitioner-firm prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 17.1.1991, Annexure P-2, passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"). Counsel for the petitioner-firm submits that the petitioner's entitlement to a route permit, as a Scheduled Caste bus operator, was accepted by the State Transport Commissioner but the Tribunal has reversed the order on an erroneous understanding of the law and an incorrect appreciation of facts. It is argued that as neither the Act nor the scheme framed by the State of Punjab prohibits, much Civil Writ Petition No. 1928 of 1991 2 less a Scheduled Caste operator from applying for and being granted one or more route permits, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the petitioner-firm cannot be granted another permit as it has already been allotted a permit, is incorrect. Counsel for private respondents no.3 and 4 does not contest the correctness of arguments addressed by counsel for the petitioner-firm and states that he has no objection if the order passed by the Tribunal is set aside. Counsel for the State of Punjab submits that in view of the statement made by counsel for the contesting respondents, he has nothing to urge in opposition. As is apparent from narrative of the facts, the petitioner- firm was awarded a route permit with one return trip, on account of its status as a Scheduled Caste. The order passed by the State Transport Commissioner was challenged by respondents no. 3 and 4, in appeal. The Tribunal has set aside this order on the ground that the petitioner-firm has already been allotted a route permit, though on another route. In the absence of any statutory provision prohibiting a Scheduled Caste operator from applying for and being granted more than one route permit, the impugned order is palapably illegal. As referred to in the preceding paragraph, the private respondents, who filed the appeal before the Tribunal, have conceded the petitioner's claim. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed, the order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the order passed by the State Transport Commissioner is restored. No order as to costs. 5.7.2011 ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) VK JUDGE