IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 12918 of 2006 DATE OF DECISION : 29.02.2008 State of Punjab .... PETITIONER Versus Highways Bus Service Regd., Patiala and another ..... RESPONDENTS C.W.P. No. 13412 of 2006 DATE OF DECISION : 29.02.2008 State of Punjab .... PETITIONER Versus Bhagat Ravi Dass Transport Co. Regd. Muktsar and another ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr. A.G. Masih, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for the petitioner. Mr. H.S. Sawhney, Senior Advocate, with Mr. B.S. Giri, Advocate, for respondent No.1. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petitions No. 12918 and CWP No. 12918 of 2006 -2- 13412 of 2006, filed by the State of Punjab through the Joint Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Transport, Chandigarh, under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 24.10.2005, passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh – respondent No.4 (hereinafter referred to as `the Appellate Tribunal'), whereby two appeals filed by the private operators (respondent No.1 in both the petitions) have been allowed and each of them has been granted one permit with one return trip daily on the varied Ferozepur- Ludhiana via Talwandi Bhai, Moga, Jagraon, Mullanpur route. Counsel for respondent No.1 has raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the State of Punjab is not competent to invoke the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, challenging the order of the Appellate Tribunal, as it was neither an applicant for grant of permit nor was a party in the appeal filed before the Appellate Tribunal. In support of his contention, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has relied upon a decision of this Court in Gill Bus Service (Regd.) Amritsar v. State of Punjab through Secretary, Punjab Transport Department, Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh and another, 1992 (1) PLR 678, wherein it was held that a writ petition filed by the State of Punjab at the behest of the Regional Transport Authority was not competent, as the State of Punjab was not a party aggrieved as there was no question of grant of a permit in favour of the State of Punjab. It was held that in the matter of grant of permits under Section 47 of the Act on a CWP No. 12918 of 2006 -3- particular route, only such party could challenge the order of the RTA or the order of the Appellate Tribunal, who is aggrieved by such an order, but the State of Punjab cannot be said to be an aggrieved party. Counsel for the petitioner-State of Punjab could not controvert the aforesaid legal position. In view of the above, we dismiss both these writ petitions filed by the State of Punjab, on the ground that the petitioner cannot be said to be an aggrieved party against the impugned order and it is not competent to challenge the said order. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE February 29, 2008 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) ndj JUDGE