CWP No.2888 of 2009 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.2888 of 2009 Date of decision: February 25, 2009. The Hissar Krishna Cooperative Transport Society Ltd. ...Petitioner(s) v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Hissar & Anr. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri H.S. Sawhney, Senior Advocate, with Shri Vikas Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): The petitioner was granted regular stage carriage permit on route No.22 from Hansi to Nalwa via Rohnat, Ratera which was later on temporarily extended upto Hissar via Mayar, Satrod. Subsequently and due to alleged bad road conditions between Nalwa and Rohnat, the petitioner was permitted to curtail the route and to ply between Rohnat to Hissar via Hansi thereby leaving two villages Nalwa and Ratera. Thereafter, when the road between Ratera and Nalwa became motorable, the Regional Transport Authority vide its order dated 16.11.2007 (Annexure P-5) directed to add both the left-out villages Ratera and Nalwa to the route allotted to the CWP No.2888 of 2009 -: 2 :- petitioner. The petitioner challenged the said order this Court by way of CWP No.19505 of 2007 but the same dismissed. As the petitioner failed to comply with the previous order dated 16.11.2007, the Regional Transport Authority passed another order dated 3.9.2008 (Annexure P-6) directing the petitioner to operate at its original route No.22, i.e., Hansi to Nalwa, via Rohnat, Ratera. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Hissar which has been dismissed vide the impugned order dated 20.1.2009, the relevant part of which reads as follows:- “After considering the rival contentions of the parties, I find that when the petitioner has approached the Hon'ble High Court against the directions issued by the Authority to ply the bus on the left out villages because it has become motorable and when the matter was heard by the Hon'ble High Court, it was necessary for the petitioner to bring this fact of the letter dated 21.3.2005 in the notice of the Hon'ble High Court. The order Annexure A-10 clearly reveals that the Hon'ble High Court has found that the extension was granted temporarily under the orders of the Hon'ble High Court. In such circumstances, thus, the Authority has not committed any illegality. If the petitioner has any grouse against the order of the Hon'ble High Court, he may either file review petition or any other remedy whatever is available to him. The letter dated 21.3.2005, which was already in existence at the time of passing of theorders CWP No.2888 of 2009 -: 3 :- by the Hon'ble High Court, no contrary view can be taken. A revision petition was filed by a Society challenging the grant of extension but that revision being time barred was dismissed on the ground of the revison being time barred. It will not be advisable to comment whether the extension of 27.3 Kms beyond 24 Kms could have been granted or not. Be that as it may, I do not find any force in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. ...” Having heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioner at some length, I do not find any legal infirmity in the impugned orders, warranting interference by this Court. Dismissed. February 25, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge