CWP No.1222 of 2009 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.1222 of 2009 Date of decision: January 27, 2009. Patiala Bus Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner(s) v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 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? Present: Shri Vinod Kumar Kataria, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): The petitioner – a transport company, impugns the order dated 10th July, 2006 passed by the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab as well as the order dated 19th July, 2007 (Annexure P-2) passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab whereby its appeal against the above mentioned order of Transport Commissioner has been dismissed. The petitioner's grievance is that instead of accepting the appeal No.337 of 2006 preferred by respondent No.3 – Patiala Golden Cooperative Transport Society Ltd., the Tribunal ought to have accepted the petitioner's appeal No.330 of 2006 and consequently ought to have allowed one Stage Carriage Permit with one return trip in favour of the petitioner for the CWP No.1222 of 2009 -: 2 :- Hoshiarpur-Bhatinda route. Having heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioner at some length and on perusing the impugned orders, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Notwithstanding the inordinate delay of more than one and a half years without any satisfactory explanation in filing of this writ petition, I have considered the petitioner's claim on merits. The Appellate Tribunal has observed that the petitioner-company already holds 16 permits with 15 buses covering a daily mileage of 1530 kilometers. Contrary to it, respondent No.3, who is otherwise eligible, is a cooperative society having 11 members and therefore, respondent No.3 would be in a better position to provide efficient services to the travelling public. The learned Appellate Tribunal has further observed that granting further route permits in favour of the petitioner would amount to creating monopoly in its favour. Both the reasons assigned by the Tribunal have rationale in law as also equity. The petitioner is a big transport company and has already got sufficient route permits in proportion of its fleet of buses, as rightly observed by the Tribunal. Contrary to it, respondent No.3 is a cooperative society and granting of permit to it would not only generate employment for its 11 members or for the manpower to be deployed by it, it would also amount to equal distribution of the means of livelihood. No interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction is, thus, called for. Dismissed. January 27, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge