IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 17712 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION : 25.04.2008 Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala .... PETITIONER Versus Narinder Singh and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr. Jagdish Marwaha, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala, has filed this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 25.7.2005, passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as `the STAT'), whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 13.10.2003, passed by the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab, exercising the powers of Regional Transport Authority, Patiala (hereinafter referred to as `the RTA') has been dismissed on the ground of limitation. In the present case, vide order dated 13.10.2003, the RTA CWP No. 17712 of 2007 -2- granted one mini bus permit to respondent No.1 for plying six return trips daily on Ablowal to Punjabi University via PRTC Head Office, ITI, Model Town, 22 No. Phatak, Leela Bhawan, Rajindra Hospital, Sewa Singh Thikriwala Chowk, Fountain Chowk, District Courts, Railway Station, Bus Stand, Sirhindi Gate, Old Octroi-Polytechnic College, Truck Union-Hiran Bagh, Urban Estate Phase I route (hereinafter referred to as `the route in question'). The said permit was granted, by keeping in view the need of the travelling public of City Patiala and the liberal policy for grant of permits under Section 80 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as laid down by the Supreme Court in Jagdeep Singh v. Jagir Chand, JT 2001 (8) SC 559. Before the RTA, no representative of the State Transport Undertaking objected the grant of mini bus permit on the route in question, as it was not provided any service on this route. Against the said order, after a long delay, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the STAT, whereas such revision is required to be filed within a period of 30 days from the date of passing of the impugned order. By a common order dated 25.7.2005, the STAT dismissed 10 separate revision petitions filed by the petitioner against 10 separate similar orders, including the aforesaid order dated 13.10.2003, on the ground of limitation. In the present case, the RTA passed the order on 13.10.2003, against which the revision petition was filed before the STAT on 5.8.2004. A plea was taken that the order passed by the RTA was not communicated to the petitioner Corporation and it came to know about the same lateron. CWP No. 17712 of 2007 -3- Thereafter, it made application for certified copy on 2.7.2004, which was supplied to it on 6.7.2004 and within 30 days thereafter, the revision petition was filed. This stand taken by the petitioner was not found to be correct, as a document (photostat copy of provisional time table dated 19.3.2004) was produced by respondent No.1, which indicated that the petitioner Corporation was having the knowledge of the impugned order on 2.3.2004 and in spite of that, it did not challenge the said order within the prescribed time. By the impugned order, as indicated above, ten revision petitions have been dismissed on the ground of limitation and the writ petitions filed against qua some cases from the impugned order have also been dismissed by this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any illegality in the impugned order. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances, we do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order, passed by the STAT. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE April 25, 2008 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) ndj JUDGE