CWP No. 9076 of 2007 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 9076 of 2007 Date of Decision:21.7.2008 Chanan Singh ......Petitioner Versus State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab and others .....Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present: Shri H.S. Sawhney, Sr. Advocate, with Shri B.S. Giri, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri A.S. Jattana, Additional AG, Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Shri Jagdish Marwaha, Advocate, for respondent No.3. HEMANT GUPTA, J. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 29.3.2007 (Annexure P.3) passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh (for short `the Tribunal'). Vide the said order, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab, to reconsider the grant of temporary permits to the eligible applicants. The State Transport Commissioner vide its order dated 25.5.2004, granted four regular stage carriage permits on Mohali- Hoshiarpur via Ropar, Balachaur, Garshanker and Malhilpur route. The said order was challenged before the Tribunal by the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation. The Tribunal found that one stage carriage permit to one of the applicants should have been granted temporarily in view the interim order passed by this Court in CWP No. 5133 of 2001 CWP No. 9076 of 2007 (2) (Manjit Bus Service Regd. and others v. State of Punjab and others). By virtue of the said order, the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation was restrained from being granted any permit on the ground its failure to discharge its tax liability. The Tribunal further directed that the State Transport Commissioner may decide that out of the four allottees, which allottee is to be granted permit on temporary basis. At the outset, learned counsel for the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, has submitted that the interim order passed by this Court, the basis of the order passed by the Tribunal, has since been vacated on 3.3.2005, when the aforesaid writ petition has been dismissed as infructuous. The Tribunal has decided appeal after the aforesaid order was passed without taking into consideration that the interim order has come to an end with the dismissal of the writ petition. Therefore, the entire matter requires reconsideration by the Tribunal. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We are of the opinion that the order passed by the Tribunal proceeds on the assumptions, which are not correct in law. The interim order passed by this Court has come to an end with the dismissal of the writ petition on 3.3.2005. The Tribunal has decided the appeal on 29.3.2007 without noticing the order passed by this Court. In view of the above, we set aside the order passed by the Tribunal and remit the matter to the Tribunal to decide the matter afresh after taking into consideration the effect of the interim order having been vacated with the dismissal of the writ petition. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE 21-07-2008 ds