C.W.P. No. 10345 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 10345 of 2008 Date of decision: 01.07.2008 Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala ..... Petitioner. Versus Bharpur Bus Service (Regd.) Patiala and others ..... Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present:- Mr. Jagdish Marwaha, Advocate for the petitioner. RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner i.e. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala ( hereinafter referred to as the PRTC, Patiala ) has prayed for quashing the impugned orders dated 28.02.2007 ( Annexure P-1 ) passed by State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab ( hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal ) and 15.04.2005 ( Annexure P-2 ) passed by the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab ( hereinafter referred to as the STC, Punjab ) as the same are in complete violation of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Notified Schemes. C.W.P. No. 10345 of 2008 -2- As per the averments made in the writ petition, respondent No.1, who was holding one regular stage carriage permit for plying one return trip daily on Patiala-Sangrur via Bhawanigarh route, applied for grant of extension of route from Sangrur to Bhadbar via Mastuana Sahib, before the Regional Transport Authority, Patiala ( hereinafter referred to as 'the RTA' ), on which the survey was conducted by the District Transport Officer, Sangrur, who recommended the proposed extension in the public interest. As per the survey report, the proposed extension involves a single length of 18 Kms and the existing route is 56 Kms. in single length. The contents of the application were got published in the Motor Transport Gazette, Weekly, Chandigarh. In response thereof, petitioner came forward to raise the objections. After considering the arguments for and against the claim of respondent No.1, the STC, vide its order dated 15.04.2007 accepted the application of respondent No.1 by observing that the proposed extension is permissible under Section 80(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act and that there is also a recommendation made by the Surveying Officer in the public interest. C.W.P. No. 10345 of 2008 -3- Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Tribunal which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 28.02.2007. While dismissing the said revision, the Tribunal held that the impugned order dated 15.04.2005 cannot be termed in any way perverse, illegal or improper. Hence, this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the authorities below have passed the impugned orders without going into the records of earlier curtailment and extension taken by respondent No.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the authorities below have not taken into consideration the interest of travelling public. We find no force in the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. As a matter of fact, the Tribunal has found that before granting the extension, the authorities below were satisfied by taking into account the over all convenience of the travelling public and the report of the Surveying Officer. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any infringement of its right because of the grant of said extension. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed in limine. ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) JUDGE ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) July 01, 2008 JUDGE dinesh