MOHAN LAL Vs. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONLY brief history is required to be noticed otherwise the question is very short one. Eight regular permits of Sangrur. . . . . . . Abobar route were to be granted for which applications were invited through advertisement Annexure P. 1 issued on January 4, 7988. In response to this advertisement, as many as 154 applications were received by the Regional Transport Authority. Under the policy decision 25% of the permits were to be granted to candidates of the Scheduled Caste category and other 25% to the economically weaker section and other permits were to granted to the general category. Applications received were again advertised inviting objections Ultimately the State Transport Commissioner exercising the powers of the Regional Transport Authority passed an order dated July 4, 1988, Annexure P-2 granting eight permits which were advertised This order was challenged in different appeals (17 in number) which were finally disposed of by the Appellate Tribunal vide Annexure P 3 dated May 24, 1990. Marxian Chand was allowed one permit with one return trip by the State Transport Commissioner from the Scheduled Caste category. Ginder Singh and Mohan Lal were allowed ore permit each from economically weaker section category. The Appellate Tribunal cancelled the permits of Maman Chand and instead allotted the said permit to M/s Soldiers Bus Service Permit of Ginder Singh was also cancelled and the said permit was allotted to the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation-respondent No. 5 Mohan Lal's permit was retained.

(2.) SARVSHRI Atma Singh and Mohinder Singh, who had submitted their applications in response to the advertisement referred to above approached this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 11453 of 1990 as their appeal was rejected by the Appellate Tribunal. This writ petition was allowed on April 19, 1991 with the direction to the Appellate Tribunal to decide their case afresh after hearing them and other necessary concerned parties. The Appellate Tribunal, thereafter passed order Annexure P. 4 on March 4, 1992 granting Mohan Lal one permit with half return trip and Atma Singh and Mohinder Singh one permit with one half return trip. It is this order which is impugned in this writ petition filed by Mohan Lal.

(3.) PEPSU Road Transport Corporation-respondent No. 5, to whom the permit was granted by the Appellate Tribunal chose not to file any reply. Their counsel had appeared on July 27, 1992 when the case was adjourned to enable the respondents to file replies. Thereafter the case was adjourned on several dates. Learned counsel namely Miss Parmvir Mand, who has put in appearance today and wanted to seek adjournment. Now we find no ground to adjourn the case as sufficient opportunities have been allowed to this respondent to file reply.