CWP No.16269 of 2009.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.16269 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 13.07.2010 **** The Chandu Cooperative Transport Society Ltd. . . . . Petitioner VS. The Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak & Ors . . . . Respondents **** 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? **** Present: Mr. Sanjeev Kodan, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Ravi Dutt Sharma, DAG Haryana ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner-Society applied for an alteration in the route already allotted to it. Its request was turned down by the Prescribed Authority in its meeting held on 17.03.2008 (Annexure P2) on the ground that previously the route has been frequently changed on the asking of the petitioner-Society. (2). The respondents, in their written statement have referred to the instructions dated 18.01.2002 issued by the Transport Commissioner in terms whereof the allotted route cannot be changed totally into a different separate route. CWP No.16269 of 2009.doc - 2 – (3). Faced with this, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-Society may be permitted to apply again to the Prescribed Authority for change/alteration in the route in such a manner that it does not change the earlier route completely. (4). The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction that as and when the petitioner-Society submits application for modification in the route (not hit by the instructions dated 18.01.2002), the respondents shall consider and dispose of the same as per the Government Policy within a period of two months from the date of its submission. (5). Ordered accordingly. (6). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 13.07.2010 vishal shonkar