IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 1694 of 1991 Date of decision : 29.08.2011 Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Patiala .....Petitioner VERSUS The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab at Chandigarh and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Jagdish Marwaha, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vivek Chauhan, AAG, Punjab for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Patiala has filed this writ petition being aggrieved against the order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal reducing the trips allowed to the petitioner-Corporation by the State Transport Commissioner. As averred in the petition, the applications were invited for Budhlada-Mansa route via Narinderpura for grant of one trip with six return trips. The petitioner-Pepsu Road Transport Corporation submitted application for grant of permit. The State Transport Commissioner vide order dated 31.10.1988 allowed one route permit trip with six return trip daily to the petitioner. One permit with three return trips was also allowed in favour of Sh. Maghar Singh (respondent No. 3) and others. The Pepsu Road Transport Corporation appealed against this order granting route permit in Civil Writ Petition No. 1694 of 1991 -2- favour of Sh. Maghar Singh. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal had upheld the grant of route permit in favour of Sh. Maghar Singh as it was viewed that even after the grant of these permits in favour of Scheduled Castes, the full quota of Scheduled Castes still had not fully exhausted. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, however, did not find any merit in the plea raised by the petitioner- Pepsu Road Transport Corporation for grant of one permit with six return trips and reduced it to one permit with three return trips. To impugn this part of the order, the petitioner-Pepsu Road Transport Corporation has filed the present writ petition. For the reasons as noticed above, the route permit in favour of the petitioner-PRTC was allowed because of the increase in traffic for which sufficient notice was given in the advertisement. For the reasoning as noticed in CWP Nos. 1835 and 1837 of 1991, the writ petition filed by the petitioner-Pepsu Road Transport Corporation would also deserve to be allowed and it is so ordered. It is also brought to my notice that the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation has been permitted to operate on the route in view of the interim order passed by this Court. The order passed by the State Transport Commissioner, thus, would stand revived. August 29, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE