IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 2396 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : 18.02.2008 Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala .... PETITIONER Versus The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr. R.S. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation has filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 15.12.2005, passed by the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab (exercising the powers of Regional Transport Authority, under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988), whereby the application filed by respondent No.3 for grant of increase in trips from one to two return trips daily on Amritsar to Faridkot via Tarn Taran, Harike, Zira route, for which the applicant was holding a valid stage carriage permit, was partly allowed by increasing trips from 1 to 1 ½ return trips daily on the aforesaid route; and CWP No. 2396 of 2008 -2- the order dated 3.4.2007, passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as `the STAT'), whereby the revision filed by the petitioner against the said order has been dismissed. After hearing counsel for the petitioner and going through the impugned orders, we do not find any merit in this petition. While not accepting the recommendation of the Survey Officer and the objection filed by the existing operators and while coming to the conclusion that increase in the trips was necessary and in the interest of general public and the same does not violate any provision of law, the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab, increased the trips from 1 to 1 ½ return trips daily on the route in question. To the increase in trips from one to two return trips daily, as initially claimed by respondent No.3, the only objection raised was that if the said increase is permitted, then in one day, one bus cannot complete the entire route, which comes to 495.2 Kms., therefore, the proposed increase would be dangerous to the travelling public. Keeping in view this fact, the Regional Transport Authority, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, ordered the increase of trips from 1 to 1 ½ return trips daily on the route in question, as daily operational mileage would be only 370.5 Kms., which can be completed by one bus in a day. The revision filed by the petitioner against the said order has been dismissed by the STAT. The only argument raised before the revisional authority was that the Regional Transport Authority has accepted the request of respondent No.3 for increase of trips without there being any CWP No. 2396 of 2008 -3- recommendation by the Survey Officer. It was also argued that actually the increase in trips is not required, as sufficient bus service was already available on this route. The STAT not only has rejected the aforesaid two contentions, which have now been again raised before this Court, while coming to the conclusion that the Regional Transport Authority was within its power to increase the trips, in case it was satisfied that the said increase was in the public interest, but has also observed that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Jashbahi Desai v. Roshan Kumar, AIR 1976 SC 578, the petitioner has not been denied or deprived of a legal right, therefore, it has no locus standi to challenge the said order by filing the revision. In our view, both the authorities have duly considered and appreciated the contentions raised by the petitioner and the order of increase in trips passed by the Regional Transport Authority has been rightly upheld by the STAT. Hence, we do not find the instant case as an exceptional case to exercise the jurisdiction of this Court for setting aside the impugned orders. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE February 18, 2008 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) ndj JUDGE