IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.17383 of 2010 Date of Decision : September 27, 2010. Baljit Singh and others. .....Petitioners versus The State Transport Commissioner, Punjab and anr. .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Rajiv Sharda, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.H.S.Brar, Additional AG, Punjab. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Mr.H.S.Brar, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. In view of the nature of order which I propose to pass, there is no need to seek any counter-reply from the respondents at this stage. The petitioners, who are the holders of valid route permits, seek a mandamus to direct the respondents to finalize and approve the time-table for the operation of the route permits on Batala to Rasulpur Tapprian via Harchandpura Aliwal, Kala Afgana Lodhi Nangal route. They seek a further direction to respondent No.2 to give the equal frequency on C.W.P.No .17383 of 2010 2 the aforesaid route to all the operators who are holding the valid route permits. In this regard, the petitioners are said to have served the authorities with a legal notice dated 15.6.2010 (Annexure P-6) but no action appears to have been taken thereupon so far. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of relief sought in this writ petition, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the same with a direction to the respondents to consider and dispose of the claim of the petitioners, contained in their legal notice dated 15.6.2010 (Annexure P-6) by passing a speaking order as per their policy/scheme, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Ordered accordingly. Dasti. September 27, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE