IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 2155 of 2005 DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 07, 2008 Pepsu Road Transport Coporation, Patiala .....PETITIONER Versus Jagdish Singh & 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. Mr. P.S.Bawa, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr.A.G.Masih, Sr.DAG, Punjab, for respondents No.2 and 3. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) The Pepsu Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as `PRTC') has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 7.8.2002 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as `STAT') granting third permit to respondent No.1. Admittedly, in the present case, the Regional Transport Authority invited applications for grant of two permits to the private operators on the route Ludhiana to Rara Sahib for operating mini bus. On the said route, the distance of 14 Kms., i.e. from Ludhiana to Rara Sahib falls on national highway. The Regional Transport Authority while taking into consideration the monopoly route as 104 Kms. i.e. from Patiala to Ahmadgarh, decided to grant two permits on the aforesaid route from Ludhiana to Rara Sahib which was less than 15 Kms./20% of the monopoly route in terms of clause 4 of the Transport Policy, 1997, to the C.W.P. No. 2155 of 2005 -2- private operators. Various applications were received for those two permits including that of respondent No.1 The petitioner did not file any objection to the grant of aforesaid two permits to the private operators. Later on, the Regional Transport Authority after taking into consideration the comparative merit of the applicants granted two permits to Jagmohan Singh and Amarinder Kaur. Feeling aggrieved against the above-said order, respondent No.1, who was also one of the applicants, filed an appeal before the STAT. It is relevant to mention here that since the petitioner was not aggrieved against the order of grant of aforesaid two permits, it did not file any appeal against the said order. The STAT though dismissed the contention of respondent No.1 being more meritorious than the aforesaid two applicants, but granted the third permit to respondent No.1 on the ground that as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Jagdeep Singh vs. Jagir Chand and another, JT 2001(8) SC 559, the State Government is not empowered to provide that only few private operators would operate on a particular route and the applicants cannot be refused ordinarily in case of a mini bus permit as State Transport Undertakings are not operating on such routes. After more than two-and-half years of passing of the said order, the petitioner filed the instant petition feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid order on the ground that the STAT was having no jurisdiction to increase the permit to be granted to the private operators. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to interfere in the impugned order passed by the STAT in exercise of the extra-ordinary C.W.P. No. 2155 of 2005 -3- powers of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Undisputedly, the petitioner did not file any objection to the invitation of the applications for grant of two permits on the route in question nor filed an appeal against the order passed by the Regional Transport Authority whereby two permits were granted to Jagmohan Singh and Amarinder Kaur because the petitioner was not aggrieved against the grant of two permits to the private operators on the route in question, which was not a monopoly route. In our opinion, the petitioner cannot be still deemed to be aggrieved against the order of grant of third permit to respondent No.1 because the said route is not a monopoly route and the private operators have not been prohibited to ply on those route under the Transport Policy dated 21.10.1997. However, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the STAT was not within its jurisdiction to increase the grant in number of permits while hearing the appeal. As far as the question with regard to grant of third permit is concerned, the same can only be raised by the aggrieved person, i.e., either by the private operator or the applicant/s or the State, but the petitioner, who is not an aggrieved person, cannot approach this court to set aside that order. In the present case, the petitioner has filed this petition after more than two-and-half years of passing of the impugned order. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in the said order at the instance of the petitioner at this belated stage, who is not an aggrieved person. Dismissed. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE February 07, 2008 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps/vkg JUDGE