CWP No. 19120 of 2007 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh CWP No. 19120 of 2007 Date of Decision: 29.08.2008 Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala through its Managing Director ...... Petitioner Versus State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.R.S.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Piyush Kant Jain, Addl. AG, Punjab for respondent No.2. Mr. P.S. Bawa, Advocate for respondent No.3. **** Ajay Tewari J. The present petition has been filed to challenge the order dated 19.4.2006 passed by the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab (exercising the power of the Regional Transport Authority) and the order dated 9.4.2007 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab, whereby extension of route has been granted to the respondent No.4 from Lehra Mohabbat to Bathinda. The only point urged by Mr.R.S.Sharma, appearing for the CWP No. 19120 of 2007 2 petitioner, is that the distance between Lehra Mohabbat and Bathinda is 26 Kms and, therefore, the extension could not be granted under proviso (ii) to Sub Section 3 of Section 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. To substantiate this, he relies upon the Fare Table in which it is computed that the distance between Lehra Mohabbat and Bathinda is 26 Kms. Counsel for the respondents have disputed this assertion by saying that before granting the extension the route was surveyed by the District Transport Officer, Sangrur who verified that the distance is 24 Kms and recommended the same in public interest. It is further urged that similar extension was granted vide permit Nos. 148 in 1998, 339/SC/67 in 2004, 10603/R/03, 144/R, 29/R/73 and 610/R/03 in 2007 and two permit Nos. 238 and 659 in 2008 on the same basis viz. the distance between Lehra Mohabbat and Bathinda being 24 Kms. In our opinion the question of distance between Lehra Mohabbat and Bathinda is a question of fact and the same has been found against the petitioner by the two statutory authorities. In the circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE August 29 , 2008 sunita