CWP No.13366 of 2007 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.13366 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision: 5.3.2008 Sukhwinder Singh ......Petitioner Versus State Transport Commissioner and another ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Shri Jasdeep Singh Gill, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.G. Masih, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J . CM No.4023 of 2008 CM is allowed. Agreement to Sell (Annexure P-5) is taken on record. CWP No.13366 of 2007 1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the letter dated 28.6.2007 (Annexure P-4) issued by the Regional Transport Authority, Ferozepur (RTA) whereby the request of the petitioner for extension of time in picking up the permit granted in his favour has been rejected. The petitioner has further prayed for the issuance of a direction to the RTA, Ferozepur, to grant extension of time to the petitioner for a further period of 15 days for completing the required formalities for picking up the permits. CWP No.13366 of 2007 (O&M) 2 2. As per the averments made in the writ petition, the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab (for short the 'STC') had invited applications for the grant of three regular stage carriage permits to operate nine return trips daily on Faridkot - Guruharsahai via Sadiq route. The State Transport Commissioner, Punjab vide his order dated 1.6.1996 granted one permit with three return trips to the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation (PRTC) and the remaining two permits with three return trips each were granted in favour of private operators. However, the application of the petitioner was rejected. 3. Feeling aggrieved against order dated 1.6.1996, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab under Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act. During the pendency of the said appeal, the petitioner submitted an application with the prayer that the PRTC had surrendered the permit granted to it by the STC, Punjab vide order dated 1.6.1996 and was no more operating on the routes in question and therefore he may be granted the surrendered permit. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal vide its order dated 1.3.2005 allowed the appeal of the petitioner and granted him one permit with three return trips. While granting the permit in favour of the petitioner, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal directed the RTA to issue the permit within three months. However, the RTA did not issue the permit for a considerable time and aggrieved against the said attitude of the respondent-authorities, the petitioner filed CWP No.13954 of 2006 which was disposed of vide order dated 22.9.2006 on the basis of the statement of the State counsel to the following effect:- “Shri Chhina states that the decision has already been taken to grant permit to the petitioner. He further states that as and when petitioner approaches the authority, CWP No.13366 of 2007 (O&M) 3 permit will be released to him immediately. It makes this writ petition infructuous and the same is disposed of as such.” 4. It is further the case of the petitioner that the respondents wrote a letter dated 15.9.2006 to him wherein it was stated that he has been granted the permit and he should obtain the same within a period of four months from the date of issuance of sanction letter by completing other formalities. However, the petitioner, in the meantime, had met with an accident and was confined to bed which even after healing resulted in certain disorder and pain due to which he went high on drugs and alcohol and because of other disturbances in the family his morale dipped to an extreme low and he was admitted in Drug Rehabilitation Centre, Mohali in January, 2007 and because of these reasons he could not obtain the permit on the route within a period of four months from the date of issuance of the said sanction letter vide Annexure P-2. 5. It is further the case of the petitioner that he vide his letter dated 13.3.2007 requested the respondents for extension of time limit. However, the said application was rejected illegally by the respondents vide letter dated 28.6.2007 (Annexure P-4). Hence, this writ petition. 6. The said petition has been contested by the respondents by filing counter affidavit of Secretary, Regional Authority Transport, Ferozepur, and it has been submitted that under sub-rule 5 of Rule 128 of Punjab Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules’) a time limit of six months has been earmarked to the grantee to obtain the permit from the date of issuance of sanction letter on the production of valid RC of the vehicle. The petitioner has failed to get the permit on Faridkot to Guruharsahai within the stipulated period of six months and therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. It has also been submitted that since CWP No.13366 of 2007 (O&M) 4 the petitioner has failed to comply with the provisions of sub-rule 5 of Rule 128 of the 1989 Rules and as such, as no valid RC of the bus in his favour has been submitted by him till date, his request for extension of time has been rightly refused. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. From the perusal of the pleadings of the parties, it is crystal clear that the petitioner has failed to comply with the provisions of sub-rule 5 of Rule 128 of the Rules, 1989. The petitioner has failed to complete the necessary formalities of submitting valid RC of bus in his favour within the stipulated time. Rather the documents placed on record by the petitioner himself show that till today the petitioner has not purchased any bus. The petitioner has placed on record an agreement to sell dated 25.1.2008 whereby one Ravinder Singh has agreed to sell vehicle Registration No.PB-31/2809 Model 1994 to the petitioner. That agreement of sale will not serve the purpose. The petitioner was required to submit registration certificate which has not been done. 9. Since, the petitioner has failed to comply with the provisions of the sub-rule 5 of Rule 128, we find no reason to interfere in the impugned order passed by respondent No.2. 10. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE March 5, 2008 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) ps JUDGE