IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 9217 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION : 26.02.2008 Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala .... PETITIONER Versus Jaswant Singh and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr. Jagdish Marwaha, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Giri, Advoate, for respondent No.1. Mr. A.G. Masih, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondents No.2 to 4. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala (hereinafter referred to as `PRTC') has filed this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 12.5.2005, passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab (hereinafter referred to as `the STAT'), whereby the revision filed by respondent No.1 against the order CWP No. 9217 of 2007 -2- passed by the Additional State Transport Commissioner, Punjab, exercising the powers of the Regional Transport Authority, Patiala (hereinafter referred to as `the RTA'), has been allowed and the application filed by respondent No.1 for curtailment and diversion of Patiala-Sehra via Jhill, Baran Majri, Rasulpur, Aakar, Aakri route has been allowed and the RTA has been directed to issue revised permit to respondent No.1. We have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the order passed by the RTA and the impugned order. In the present case, respondent No.1 was holding a Mini Bus permit No. 773/MB/R/2000 for plying four return trips daily on Patiala- Sehra via Jhill, Baran Majri, Rasulpur, Aakar, Aakri route. He filed an application under Section 80 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') for the grant of regular diversion of his said route to operate it via DCW, Urban Estate, Bahadurgarh instead of going via Jhill, Baran, Majri and Rasulpur. The said application was processed as per the rules and survey of the existing route as well as the proposed diversion was got conducted from the District Transport Officer, who recommended that the proposed diversion is 12.8 Kms. and curtailment is 10.1 Kms. in single length. The objections were invited by publishing a notice in the Motor Transport Gazette Weekly Chandigarh. In response thereto, PRTC (petitioner herein) filed objections to the proposed diversion. The RTA, after hearing PRTC and respondent No.1, considered the proposal as well as the objections and rejected the application of respondent CWP No. 9217 of 2007 -3- No.1. Against the said order, respondent No.1 filed revision petition under Section 90 of the Act before the STAT. In the said revision petition, PRTC on whose objections the application of respondent No.1 was dismissed by the RTC, was not impleaded as a party. The STAT vide order dated 12.5.2005 has allowed the said revision. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while relying upon the decision of this Court in Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala v. Mansahia Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. Mansa and others, 2003 (2) PLR 783, submits that the petitioner, on whose objections the application of respondent No.1 was rejected by the RTC, was necessary party before the STAT and respondent No.1, without impleading the petitioner as party and without issuing notice of the revision petition, got the order of the RTA set aside. He submits that in view of the said decision, where in the similar circumstances it was held that the objectors before the State Transport Commissioner were necessary party in appeal before the STAT and if the order of the State Transport Commissioner is set aside without providing an opportunity of hearing to the objectors, on whose objections the application of the applicant was rejected, the matter is to be remitted to the STAT to decide the revision after impleading the petitioner as a party. Counsel for the respondents have not controverted the aforesaid legal position. In view of the above, this petition is allowed; the order dated 12.5.2005, passed by the STAT is set aside; and the matter is remitted back to the STAT to decide the matter afresh after issuing necessary notice to the CWP No. 9217 of 2007 -4- petitioner-PRTC, and after affording an opportunity of hearing to it, in accordance with law. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE February 26, 2008 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) ndj JUDGE