CWP No. 3101 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (1) CWP No. 3101 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION: May 25, 2011 Sh. Desa Singh .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab and others .......RESPONDENT(S) (2) CWP No. 3102 of 2011 Sh. Desa Singh .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab and others .......RESPONDENT(S) (3) CWP No. 3103 of 2011 Sh. Desa Singh .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab and others .......RESPONDENT(S) (4) CWP No. 3104 of 2011 Shiv Raj .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab and others .......RESPONDENT(S) (5) CWP No. 3105 of 2011 Surinder Singh .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS CWP No. 3101 of 2011 2 State of Punjab and others .......RESPONDENT(S) (6) CWP No. 3106 of 2011 Surinder Singh .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab and others .......RESPONDENT(S) (7) CWP No. 3243 of 2011 Mohinder Kumar .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab and others .......RESPONDENT(S) (8) CWP No. 3269 of 2011 Shiv Raj .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab and others .......RESPONDENT(S) (9) CWP No. 3270 of 2011 Mohinder Kumar .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab and others .......RESPONDENT(S) (10) CWP No. 3284 of 2011 Vijay Kumar .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS CWP No. 3101 of 2011 3 State of Punjab and others .......RESPONDENT(S) (11) CWP No. 3289 of 2011 Naresh Kumar .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab and others .......RESPONDENT(S) (12) CWP No. 3293 of 2011 Sh. Desa Singh .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab and others .......RESPONDENT(S) (13) CWP No. 3864 of 2011 Rajinder Kumar .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab and others .......RESPONDENT(S) AND (14) CWP No. 3865 of 2011 Sh. Desa Singh .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab and others .......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. R.S. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Ms. Sonu Chahal, Addl. A.G., Punjab. CWP No. 3101 of 2011 4 AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) 1. This shall dispose of 14 writ petitions namely CWP No. 3101 of 2011 entitled Desa Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, CWP No. 3102 of 2011 entitled Desa Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, CWP No. 3103 of 2011 entitled Desa Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, CWP No. 3104 of 2011 entitled Shiv Raj vs. State of Punjab and others, CWP No. 3105 of 2011 entitled Surinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, CWP No. 3106 of 2011 entitled Surinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, CWP No. 3243 of 2011 entitled Mohinder Kumar vs. State of Punjab and others, CWP No. 3269 of 2011 entitled Shiv Raj vs. State of Punjab and others, CWP No. 3270 of 2011 entitled Mohinder Kumar vs. State of Punjab and others, CWP No. 3284 of 2011 entitled Vijay Kumar vs. State of Punjab and others, CWP No. 3289 of 2011 entitled Naresh Kumar vs. State of Punjab and others, CWP No. 3293 of 2011 entitled Desa Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, CWP No. 3864 of 2011 entitled Rajinder Kumar vs. State of Punjab and others and CWP No. 3865 of 2011 entitled Desa Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, as common questions of facts and law are involved. 2. For reference to record, CWP No. 3101 of 2011 entitled Desa Singh vs. State of Punjab and others is being taken up. 3. This petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing or modifying order dated 19.02.2009, placed on record as Annexure P-6. Further prayer made in the petition is to grant contract carriage permit to the petitioner for operation under the provisions of Motor CWP No. 3101 of 2011 5 Vehicles Act, 1988 and Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and any other scheme, if framed by the State of Punjab. The petition further prays that respondents be directed not to wait formulation of the new policy and grant permits on the basis of applications already made by the petitioner. 4. A perusal of Annexure P-6 indicates that the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab has remitted the application of the petitioner to the concerned authority with a direction to reconsider the case of the petitioner within a period of 3 months from the date when the new contract stage carriage scheme is approved and notified. A further direction has been issued to adjust the permit fees already deposited by the petitioner towards any permit fee required to be deposited under the new scheme. 5. The stand of the respondents is contained in para no. 2 of the reply and is in the following terms:- “2: That the contents of para No. 2 of the petition are admitted to the extent that the petitioner had applied for the grant of a contract carriage permit for operation of a tempo (seven seaters including driver) on Abohar to Bhagsar via Ramsara, Bhagu route. Since the Punjab Government has published draft notification for contract carriage passenger tempos on 05.05.2011 in Official Gazette for inviting objections from general public within 30 days, therefore the application of the petitioner and others for the grant of a contract carriage permit on the route is pending awaiting for final notification. After final notification, the application of the petitioner and others will be considered and disposed off accordingly.” CWP No. 3101 of 2011 6 6. Perusal of the reply indicates that the State of Punjab has already published notification for contract carriage passenger tempos on 05.05.2011 in official gazette. Objections have been invited from general public within 30 days. It has specifically been said that after final notification, applications of the petitioner and others will be considered and disposed of accordingly. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has shown an apprehension that the claim of the petitioner under the application already made would not be considered. 8. I have considered the contention of the learned counsel in context of the stand of the respondents. 9. Perusal of impuged order Annexure P-6 itself indicates that a direction has been issued to the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner within a period of 3 months from the date when new contract stage carriage scheme is notified. So much so a further direction has been issued that permit fee already deposited would be adjusted while considering the application of the petitioner under the new notified scheme. 10. In these circumstances, the apprehension of the petitioner appears to be without reasonable foundation. 11. The petitions, in view of the stand of the respondents as extracted above, are disposed of, however, with directions to the respondents to finalize the scheme as soon as possible. 12. Copy of the order be forwarded to the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab. 25.05.2011 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE CWP No. 3101 of 2011 7 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?