C.W.P.No.22713 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.22713 of 2011 Date of Decision:-8.12.2011 Punjab Government Transport Workers Union ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & Ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.N.K.Nagar, Advocate for the petitioner. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) The compendium of the facts, which requires to be noticed for the limited purpose of deciding the sole controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that M/s Dhuri Bus Service, Dhuri (respondent No.3) is operating its transport service on Malerkotla-Jagraon route in accordance with the time table approved by the respondent No.2-Regional Transport Authority (for brevity “the RTA”), Patiala. As the transport department was not implementing the joint time table issued by the RTA on the indicated route, therefore, respondent No.3 filed civil writ petition, bearing No.8705 of 2011, in which, the State counsel stated that if it (respondent No.3) appears and shows its permit to the RTA within a week, it shall be allowed to ply its buses as per the permit on the route in question. Consequently, the writ petition was ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn, by virtue of order dated 6.9.2011 (Annexure P7). The permit of respondent No.3 was found to be in order and it was permitted to ply its buses on the indicated route by the Secretary RTA, by means of impugned order dated 15.9.2011 (Annexure P8). 2. Aggrieved by the order (Annexure P8), the petitioner, claiming itself to be registered and recognized transport workers union, preferred the present writ C.W.P.No.22713 of 2011 -2- petition and challenged the impugned order, invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant writ petition. 4. What cannot possibly be disputed here is that in the wake of CWP No.8705 of 2011, respondent No.3 was permitted to produce its permit before the RTA and the writ petition was ordered to be dismissed, by way of order (Annexure P7). In pursuance thereof, its permit was checked, which was found to be genuine and valid upto 17.1.2012. It was allowed to operate four trips on Malerkotla- Jagraon route, as per the time table approved by the Secretary RTA, through the medium of impugned order (Annexure P8), which, in substance, is as under:- “Sub:- Regarding compliance of orders of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court passed in CWP No.8705 of 2011. On the aforesaid subject, M/s Dhuri Bus Service is running its transport services on Jagraon-Malerkotla route in accordance with time table approved by this office but your depot had stopped running these buses on aforesaid permit, against which this company had filed a CWP No.8705 of 2011 in the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court and the Hon'ble Court vide its order dated 06.09.2011 had allowed Dhuri Bus Service to operate its buses as per approved time table. In this context, the permit of Dhuri Bus Service is checked in the light of decision of the Hon'ble Court which reveals that this company was issued permit no.316/R/88, valid upto 17.01.2012 to operate four trips on Malerkotla-Jagraon route, copy of the permit is enclosed, therefore, while sending you copies of the order of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High court and copy of approved time table alongwith present letter asking you to allow plying of Dhuri Bus Service as per approved time table without causing any hindrance so that compliance of the orders of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court be made. Secretary Regional Transport Authority, Patiala” 5. As is evident from the record that the permit of respondent No.3 was C.W.P.No.22713 of 2011 -3- genuine and valid upto 17.1.2012. It was rightly permitted to operate its bus services on the indicated route. The learned counsel for the petitioner did not point out any legal violation and material, much less cogent, to contend as to how and in what manner, the impugned order (Annexure P8) is illegal and would invite any interference in this relevant behalf. Since no patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, so, the impugned orders (Annexure P8) deserves to be and is hereby maintained, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 6. In the light of aforementioned reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed as such. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 8.12.2011 Judge AS