CWP No.16482 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.16482 of 2011 Date of decision: 05.09.2011 Kanwaljit Singh and others ....Petitioners Versus The State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. Rohit Kapoor, Advocate, for the petitioners. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL) Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that time table can be varied only after giving one month notice as required under Section 72(2)(xxii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; respondent No.3/RTA is adamant to vary time table of the operators operating on the route in question i.e. Kapurthala to Tanda without issuing any notice to the petitioner-operators as required under Section 72(2)(xxii) of the Act; while referring to letter dated 30.6.2011 (Annexure P-3), learned counsel has further argued that respondent No.3 has called proposed time table from the General Manager, PEPSU Road Transport Corporation for the route in question without any notice to the petitioners; further contends that petitioners have already moved representation before respondent No.3 in the shape of legal notice (Annexure P-8), however, respondent No.3 is not ready to issue notice to CWP No.16482 of 2011 -2- the operators of the route in question to submit their proposed time table for the route in question. On being asked, learned counsel for the petitioners has fairly contended that till day no variation has been made in the time table for the route in question, however, petitioners have reasonable apprehension that they shall not be heard before making variation in the time table as required by Section 72(2)(xxii) of the Act. Apprehension of the petitioners seems to be mis-conceived and premature. However, it goes without saying that respondent No.3 may vary the time table of the operators operating on the route in question in accordance with law and procedure prescribed under the Act and Rules after notice and opportunity of hearing to the operators operating on the route in question. Respondent No.3 shall decide the representation/legal notice (Annexure P-8) within 30 days from the date certified copy of this order is placed before him. With this observation, writ petition stands disposed of. (Alok Singh) Judge September 05, 2011 R.S.