IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.20167 of 2008 Date of decision: 28.11.2008 Mand Bus Service. -----Petitioner Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab and others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL Present:- Mr. Baldev Kapoor, Advocate for the petitioner. ----- ORDER: 1. The petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 24.10.2008, Anneuxre P-2, passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, setting aside the order of the State Transport Commissioner (STC). The STC vide order dated 19.4.2006 allowed diversion in route permit already granted to the petitioner from Barnala-Mullanpur via Thikriwala, Chhiniwala Mehal Kalan, Raikot, Mullanpur, to Barnala to Mehal Kalan via Sanghera, Wazidke instead of going via Thikriwala, Chhiniwala and extension upto Ludhiana from Mullanpur. 2. The Tribunal has set aside the said order with the following observations:- 12. .....As per the report of the Surveying Officer, only 40 services are available on the curtailment portion, whereas C.W.P. No.20167 of 2008 250 services are available on the diversion portion. The RTA failed to discuss in the impugned order that the availability of 39 services on the curtailment portion would be sufficient to meet with the requirement of the traveling public. Definitely, the residents of the area, falling on the curtailment portion have been deprived of the direct bus service upto Barnala and Mullanpur, which was an important aspect to be discussed by the competent authority. As per the report made by the Surveying Officer, already there being 425 services available on the extension portion, it will not be expedient to make a congestion on the route because 425 services can be said to be more than sufficient. As a matter of fact, the competent authority has allowed respondent No.2 to earn more by way of granting the extension from Mullanpur to Ludhiana at the cost of the inconvenience to be suffered by the residents of the area, falling on the curtailment portion...” 3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that observation in the impugned order that Regional Transport Authority failed to discuss availability of 39 services on the curtailment portion was erroneous. The said issue was duly considered by the Regional Transport Authority. 5. We find from the impugned order that the Tribunal has also held that residents of the area falling in the curtailment portion have been deprived of direct bus service upto Barnala and Mullanpur and that it will not be expedient to make congestion where 425 services are already available. These observations of the Tribunal cannot be held to be perverse. 2 C.W.P. No.20167 of 2008 6. We are unable to hold that there is any patent error in the impugned order, calling for interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 7. The petition is dismissed. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE November 28, 2008 ( L. N. MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 3