IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 16881 of 2009. [O&M] Date of Decision: 1st October, 2010. Gurmail Kaur Petitioner through Mr. H.S.Sawhney, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate. Versus State Transport Commissioner, Punjab & Ors. Respondents through Anil Kumar Sharma, Addl.AG, Punjab. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 16881 and 19600 of 2009. The first writ petition has been filed seeking implementation of the order dated 24.04.2003 [Annexure P-1] passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, the second writ petition filed by the State of Punjab seeks quashing of the said order of the Tribunal. Some-what similar controversy came up for consideration before this Court in CWP No. 19010 of 2009 [Inderjit Singh v State Transport Commissioner, Punjab], decided on 05.04.2010 which was disposed of in the following manner:- “The petitioner seeks for enforcement of a direction given by the Appellate Tribunal for issuance of a permit on 24.02.2003. The first application appears to have been made nearly 5 years and 6 months later and it was rejected on the ground of limitation. The permits through particular routes are issued normally in public interest and if a person would not follow up an order from the Tribunal to make an application within reasonable time, he could not expect that permit shall be immediately given to him on the basis of an order which was issued more than 5 years and 6 months earlier. Even while stating that the petitioner shall not be permitted to seek for enforcement in the manner sought for, still an opportunity is afforded to the petitioner to make a fresh application before the RTA, 1st respondent within a period of four weeks, who shall consider the plea on the existing situation relating to the viability and the public interest and as per the scheme extent for present and take a decision and pass a speaking order within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of application”. Both the writ petitions are accordingly disposed of in the terms reproduced above. The petitioner in CWP No. 16881 of 2009 shall be at liberty to make a supplementary representation which shall be considered by the authorities in accordance with law/policy, as early as possible and preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the said supplementary representation along with a certified copy of this order. Disposed of. Dasti. October 01, 2010. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE