CWP No.10344 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.10344 of 2008 Date of decision:1.7.2008 Pepsu Road Transport Corporation ......Petitioner Versus Green Roadways Pvt.Ltd. & ors. ......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. 1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner i.e. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala has challenged the impugned order dated 17.7.2007 (Annexure P-1) passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal Punjab, Chandigarh and the order dated 10.9.2006 (Annexure P- 2) passed by the State Transport Commissioner Punjab, Chandigarh on the ground that the said orders are in violation of the Motor Vehicles Act and the notified schemes. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of these orders. 2. Respondent No.1 applied to the Regional Transport Authority (RTA) for the curtailment of the route from Bathinda to Talwandi Sabo from the existing route Faridkot to Talwandi Sabo via Baja-Goniana-Bathinda- Kot Shamir and the subsequent increase of return trips from five to eight. The survey was conducted by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Ferozepur, who reported that the single length of the existing route i.e. CWP No.10344 of 2008 2 Faridkot to Talwandi Sabo via Bajakhana is 95 kms. The length of the portion to be curtailed from Bathinda to Talwandi Sabo via Kot Shamir is 28 kms and that the entire curtailment portion falls on the State Highways. 3. After considering the application of respondent No.1 in the meeting held on 10.8.2006, the Regional Transport Authority accepted the claim of respondent No.1 observing that the Surveying Officer has justified the curtailment of the route and the increase in return trips. It was also found that respondent No.1 who was paying the State Road Tax of 1908 kms for the operation of the vehicles, shall be paying SRT of 2010 kms on the variation in the conditions in the permits as prayed. The objections raised by the petitioner-Corporation were held to be not plausible. The revision petition filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the State Transport Appellate Authority as barred by limitation as well as on merits. 4. Sh. Jagdish Marwaha, learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently argued that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are contrary to the settled legal proposition as the notified schemes of the State Government have been violated. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case. 6. We find no force in the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has no locus standi to assail the curtailment of the route and increase in return trips on the route because the petitioner is not aggrieved of the order passed by the Regional Transport Authority. It is no where mentioned by the petitioner as to what legal grievances, the petitioner has, against the impugned order, which has jeopardised the rights guaranteed under the Act or any other scheme. The order of the Regional Transport Authority cannot be said to be in any way illegal or improper and the same has been confirmed by the State Transport CWP No.10344 of 2008 3 Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal has also given a finding that the petitioner has failed to discharge the burden to satisfy the Tribunal that he has a legal grievance against the impugned order passed by the Regional Transport Authority. 7. In view of the above, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed in limine. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE July 1, 2008 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) ps JUDGE