IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 15273 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION : 01.02.2008 Randhir Singh .... PETITIONER Versus State Transport Commissioner, Haryana and another ..... RESPONDENTS C.W.P. No. 15280 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION : 01.02.2008 Shri Om .... PETITIONER Versus State Transport Commissioner, Haryana and another ..... RESPONDENTS C.W.P. No. 15291 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION : 01.02.2008 Baljeet Singh .... PETITIONER Versus State Transport Commissioner, Haryana and another ..... RESPONDENTS C.W.P. No. 15292 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION : 01.02.2008 Jag Parvesh .... PETITIONER Versus State Transport Commissioner, Haryana and another ..... RESPONDENTS CWP No. 15273 of 2007 -2- C.W.P. No. 15586 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION : 01.02.2008 Ram Niwas .... PETITIONER Versus State Transport Commissioner, Haryana and another ..... RESPONDENTS C.W.P. No. 19221 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION : 01.02.2008 Ram Niwas .... PETITIONER Versus State Transport Commissioner, Haryana and another ..... RESPONDENTS C.W.P. No. 19229 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION : 01.02.2008 Suraj Mal .... PETITIONER Versus State Transport Commissioner, Haryana and another ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Narender Sura, AAG, Haryana. * * * CWP No. 15273 of 2007 -3- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. This order shall dispose of CWPs No. 15273, 15280, 15291, 15292, 15586, 19221 and 19229 of 2007, as case of the petitioners in all these petitions is similar. However, the facts are being taken from CWP No. 15273 of 2007. By way of these writ petitions, the petitioners are seeking direction to the respondents for issuance of a State Carriage Permit for CNG Bus for Gurgaon to Dhaula Kuan (Delhi) route or any other permit in pursuance of the offer letter dated 16.6.2004 (Annexure P-2) issued vide memo No. 4808 by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority cum District Transport Officer, Gurgaon (respondent No.2) in favour of the petitioners. As per the averments, made by the petitioners in the writ petitions, the State of Haryana vide notification dated 20.1.2004 (Annexure P-1) launched a scheme by the name of `Faridabad and Gurgaon City Private Bus Service Scheme, 2004'. The objective of the scheme was to meet the increasing demand for local passengers transport services in the cities of Faridabad and Gurgaon to Delhi by encouraging private operators by granting permits under Open Scheme. The petitioners applied for State Carriage Permit under the aforesaid scheme and after considering their case, they were issued offer letter dated 16.6.2004 (Annexure P-2) to ply CNG Bus on Gurgaon – Dhaula Kuan (Delhi) route. As per this offer letter, the petitioners were required to deposit a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as security and to CWP No. 15273 of 2007 -4- file an affidavit in the enclosed format, within a period of 15 days from the date of its issuance. Petitioners submitted the affidavits and deposited security in the month of June, 2004. It is further case of the petitioners that they were to start the operation of the bus on the aforesaid route within a period of 45 days from the date of depositing the security and they purchased the bus on 3.8.2004 i.e. within 45 days. However, the respondents failed to enter into an agreement with the State of Delhi, as required under Section 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the permit was kept in abeyance. It is further the case of the petitioners that they made representation dated 27.9.2004 (Annexure P-5) to the respondents and a reminder was also sent on 27.6.2007 vide Annexure P-6. However, the respondents failed to issue the permit on the applied route or on any other alternative route to the petitioners. It is further the case of the petitioners that some of the similarly situated persons were granted permits by changing their routes. It has been averred by the petitioners that the respondents have not acted fairly as they were not granted the route as per the offer letter or any other alternative route, as granted to others. Hence, this writ petition. The claim of the petitioners has been contested by the respondents by filing written statement, stating therein that as per the terms and conditions of the offer letter (Annexure P-2), the petitioners have failed to make the bus road worthy within a period of 45 days from the date of deposit of security i.e. June, 2004. As per the written statement, buses of the petitioners have not been registered with them till date and they do not have CWP No. 15273 of 2007 -5- any intimation in this regard. As per the stand of the respondents, the petitioners were informed vide letter dated 23.12.2004 (Annexure R-1) that a period of more than 6 months had elapsed, but the operation of the bus could not be started and therefore, the offer letter dated 16.6.2004 (Annexure P-2) might be treated as withdrawn. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. From the facts stated above, it is crystal clear that the petitioners failed to fulfill the conditions of the offer letter (Annexure P-2), as the operation of the bus could not be started within 45 days from the date of deposit of the security and the petitioners also failed to get the permission of the Delhi Administration by way of counter signatures to ply the bus through Delhi area and, therefore, they were rightly informed by the respondents vide letter dated 23.12.2004 (Annexure R-1) that the offer given to the petitioners vide offer letter (Annexure P-2) be treated as withdrawn. Not only this, it is also clear from the facts of the case that after the receipt of the letter dated 23.12.2004 (Annexure R-1), the petitioners kept quite for more than two and half years and approached the respondents, only when one Sunita Rani was granted an alternative route, by way of reminder dated 27.6.2007 (Annexure P-6), praying therein that they be granted permit by changing/extending the route. The petitioners have failed to give any explanation for the intervening period. In this regard, the petitioners have placed reliance upon a representation dated 27.9.2004 CWP No. 15273 of 2007 -6- (Annexure P-5) to say that they had made a representation for their claim. However, a perusal of this document would show that the petitioners were not party to the said representation. Moreover, vide letter dated 23.12.2004 (Annexure R-1), the respondents had informed the petitioners that the offer given to them be treated as withdrawn. There is absolutely no explanation for the intervening period from December, 2004 till the filing of the present writ petitions. Hence, the writ petitions suffer from delay and latches also. Moreover, the petitioners have no vested right to claim an alternative route in lieu of the offer letter (Annexure P-2). In view of the above, we do not find any ground to interfere in the matter in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Hence, the writ petitions are dismissed being without any merit. ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) JUDGE February 01, 2008 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE