C.W.P. No. 10343 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 10343 of 2008 Date of decision: 01.07.2008 Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala ..... Petitioner. Versus M/s Patiala Bus Highways Service Pvt. Ltd., Patiala 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. RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner i.e. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala ( hereinafter referred to as 'the PRTC, Patiala ) has prayed for quashing the impugned order dated 07.09.2006 ( Annexure P-1 ) passed in appeal No. 10 of 2005 by State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab ( hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' ) as the same is in complete violation of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Notified Schemes. C.W.P. No. 10343 of 2008 2 As per the averments made in the writ petition, respondent No.1, who was holding one stage carriage permit for plying two return trips daily on Patiala-Doraha via Nandpur-Kesho- Sirhind route, applied for grant of regular extension from Doraha to Ludhiana in respect of said permit on the route in question, upon which, survey was got conducted by the Secretary Regional Transport Authority, Patiala ( hereinafter referred to as 'the RTA' ), who recommended the extension in the public interest. The existing route was of 74 Kms. in single length whereas the portion on which the extension was sought from Doraha to Ludhiana runs 22 Kms. in single length. Objections were invited by giving notice in the Motor Transport Gazette Weekly, Chandigarh. The PRTC, Patiala as well as the Punjab Roadways preferred objections to the said application. The State Transport Commission, Punjab ( hereinafter referred to as 'the STC' ), held that the request of the respondent company for the grant of proposed extension was not justified. Aggrieved against the order of the STC, respondent No.1 ( Patiala Bus Highways Service Ltd. ) preferred an appeal before the Tribunal, who while allowing the appeal, set aside the impugned order dated 04.09.2004 and observed that the proposed extension for the grant of permit in question, has to be accorded in order to further the convenience C.W.P. No. 10343 of 2008 3 of the travelling public on the route qua the extension portion. The Tribunal also found that the STC has not given any valid reasons to discard the report of the Surveying Officer. The Tribunal also found that in other three similar type of cases, the report of the Surveying Officer, had been accepted, without any exception but in the present case, the report of the Surveying Officer was discarded under the excuse that sufficient bus services were already available on the proposed extension in an overlapping manner and that the need of the travelling public is being met with quite satisfactorily. The petitioner has challenged the above said order. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. However, we are unable to accept the plea of the petitioner in respect of challenge to the findings of the Tribunal. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the same was passed on 07.09.2006 i.e. after about one year and nine months ago. No explanation has been furnished in the present writ petition with regard to delay and laches. C.W.P. No. 10343 of 2008 4 In view of the facts stated hereinbefore, we are not inclined to interfere in the well reasoned order of the Tribunal. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed in limine. ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) JUDGE ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) July 01, 2008 JUDGE dinesh