IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 5915 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION: APRIL 22, 2008 M/s Ludhiana Transport Company Private Ltd., Ludhiana .....PETITIONER Versus State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh and another ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG --- Present: Mr. Kamaldeep Singh Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mrs. Sudeepti Sharma, AAG, Punjab. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. The petitioner has filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 15.6.2005 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent No.2 rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of extension in the permit and increase of return trips; and the order dated 2.11.2006 (Annexure P-1) passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as `the Appellate Tribunal') dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the aforesaid order. In the present case, the petitioner is holding one regular stage carriage permit for plying one return trip daily on Barnala-Mullanpur via Raikot route. In the year 2005, the petitioner filed an application under Section 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as `the CWP No.5915 of 2007 -2- Act') for grant of extension of the said route up to Ludhiana from Mullanpur and increase in return trips from one to two. After completing the formalities, the objections were invited on the aforesaid application. The representatives, who appeared on behalf of the General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Jagraon and General Manager, Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Barnala, the State Transport Undertakings, objected the proposed extension and increase in trips while representing that on the route in question more than 600 bus services were available, therefore, there is no need for grant of the proposed extension and increase in trips. The State Transport Commissioner after hearing the petitioner and the objectors rejected the prayer of the petitioner vide order dated 15.6.2005 while coming to the conclusion that the extension of the route and increase in trips was not justified and was also not in public interest. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 2.11.2006 dismissed the said appeal while observing as under:- “I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and find that no case is made out for interfering with the impugned order. The availability of 690 bus services, as referred to in the impugned order on the proposed extension can be said to have reached a saturation point. Even if, as per the report of the Surveying Officer, the number of services, both direct and in an overlapping manner taken into account, there are 573 services available on the route, which are more than sufficient to meet with the requirement of the travelling public.” Against the said order, the instant petition has been filed by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the proposed extension of the route was only 19 Kms. in length, which is within CWP No.5915 of 2007 -3- permissible limit prescribed under Section 80(3) of the Act, therefore, both the authorities have wrongly declined the prayer of the petitioner. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any merit in this petition. It is not mandatory that an application for extension of the route is to be granted if the extension sought is within permissible limit. The statute has empowered the Regional Transport Authority to take a decision on an application for extension of the route permit if the extension is in the interest of the travelling public. In the instant case, the Regional Transport Authority as well as the Appellate Tribunal after taking into consideration various relevant factors as also the availability of number of bus services and interest of the travelling public, have come to the conclusion that the proposed extension is not necessary, therefore, the extension was declined. We do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned orders in exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Dismissed. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE April 22, 2008 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) vkg JUDGE