IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 2411 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : 18.02.2008 Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala .... PETITIONER Versus The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr. R.S. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation has filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 10.8.2006, passed by the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab (exercising the powers of Regional Transport Authority, under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988), whereby the application filed by respondent No.3 for grant of increase of return trips from half to one daily on Damdama Sahib to Amritsar via Bathinda-Jaitu-Faridkot Zira-Makhu-Tarn Taran route for which the applicant was holding a valid stage carriage permit, was allowed; and the order dated 31.1.2007, passed by the State Transport Appellate CWP No. 2411 of 2008 -2- Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as `the STAT'), whereby the revision filed by the petitioner against the said order has been dismissed. After hearing counsel for the petitioner and going through the impugned orders, we do not find any merit in this petition. To the increase in trips from one to two return trips daily, as initially claimed by respondent No.3, the only objection raised was that there is no public demand for the introduction of more bus service on the route in question and if more bus services are added, the income of the State Transport Undertaking will be affected adversely. While accepting the recommendation of the Survey Officer and rejecting the objection filed by the existing operators, the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab, came to the conclusion that the present bus services available on the aforesaid route are not feeding the requirements of travelling public adequately and with the increase of return trips on the route, the income of State will be enhanced by way of levying of Special Road Tax on the increased trip. Accordingly, the increase of return trip from half to one daily on the route in question was allowed. The revision filed by the petitioner against the said order has been dismissed by the STAT. The only argument raised before the revisional authority was that by the grant of increase in trip from half to one on the route in question, the share of the mileage to be provided between the State Transport Undertaking and the private operators, as per clause (5) of the Transport Scheme dated 9.8.1990 modified as on 21.10.2007 has been CWP No. 2411 of 2008 -3- disturbed. The STAT rejected the aforesaid contention, which has now been again raised before this Court, while coming to the conclusion that this objection was never raised before the Regional Transport Authority. It was held that in response to the objections, invited by the Regional Transport Authority, the petitioner was at liberty to apply for sharing a mileage in the increase of the return trip to be granted to respondent No.3. But since the petitioner did not apply for the same, therefore, it is estopped by its act and conduct. In our view, both the authorities have duly considered and appreciated the contentions raised by the petitioner and the order of increase in trips passed by the Regional Transport Authority has been rightly upheld by the STAT. Hence, we do not find the instant case as an exceptional case to exercise the jurisdiction of this Court for setting aside the impugned orders. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE February 18, 2008 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) ndj JUDGE