KEHARWALA BALAJI COOPERATIVE TRANSPORT SOCIETY LTD Vs. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, HARYANA, HISAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are the Cooperative Transport Societies providing transport facility to travelling public. The petitioners were granted permit on Karamshala to Keharwala route. In the year 1995, on an application filed by the petitioners, the route was extended upto Masita from Keharwala, which is at a distance of 24 K.Ms. This order was passed in terms of Section 80(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short, "the Act"). After this extension, the route of the petitioners became Karamshala to Masita. As per the petitioners, on a public demand, they submitted an application for further extension of the route from Masita to Dabwali. This was granted on 13.10.1995 in case of petitioner No.1 and for petitioner No.2 w.e.f. 16.1.1997. They are operating on this route since then.

(2.) On 22.5.2002, the petitioners were served a notice, asking them to explain as to why the extension of route from Masita to Dabwali be not cancelled. The petitioners challenged the same by filing writ petition before this Court but the same was dismissed as withdrawn so as to appear before State Transport Authority. The State Transport Authority discharged the notice without making any change in the extension of route as granted. Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 then filed revision before the State Appellate Tribunal. Prior thereto, they had also filed a representation before respondent No. 2. The Transport Appellate Tribunal disposed of the revision petition directing respondent No.2 to decide the representation filed by respondent Nos. 4 to 6. On 2.4.2008, the order has been reviewed and the extension as granted has been cancelled. The revision filed by the petitioner against the same has been dismissed. They have accordingly filed the present writ petition.

(3.) The submission is that once the route was extended, the extended route would become new route under Section 80(3) and subsequent extension, thus, would again be allowed, the earlier route with extension being a new route permit. For this reason, the plea that extension can not be granted beyond 24 K.Ms would not be attracted.