PATIALA BUS (SIRHIND) PRIVATE LIMITED, SIRHIND AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PUNJAB, LUDHIANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE circumstances giving rise to this writ petition may be briefly stated as under :

(2.) THE petitioners who are Transporters Private Ltd., and held one permit for two return trips each on Patiala -Bassi via Rajpura route, applied to the Sate Transport Commissioner Respondent 2, hereinafter called the Commissioner) for extension of the said route beyond Bassi upto Morinda. The contents of their applications were published under section 57(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter called the Act) in the weekly 'Shamsher Hind' Patiala dated November 1, 1973, but no objections or representation against the said applications had been received from any person or transporter within the requisite time. In the meeting held by the Commissioner at Patiala on February 11, 1974, appearance was made on behalf of Ambala Bus Syndicate (Private) Ltd., Ropar (Respondent 3, hereinafter called the respondent) and an objection was raised against the extension of the aforesaid route applied for by the petitioners, on the ground that grant of the extension of the route would adversely affect its (the respondent's) business, since it was existing operator and had been plying buses on Ropar -Sirhind route, which included the distance from Bassi to Morinda, for which extension had been prayed for. The said objection did not prevail with the Commissioner for the reason that the aforesaid objection had not been made within the time limit and no copy thereof had been furnished to the petitioners Finding that the extension of the route prayed for was in the interest of the public, the Commissioner allowed the applications of the petitioners and extended Patiala -Bassi via Ropar route upto Morinda. Aggrieved by the said order dated February 11, 1974, the respondent carried appeal to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. Punjab (hereinafter called, the Tribunal). By its order dated June 5, 1974 (hereinafter called the impugned order), the Tribunal set aside the aforesaid order of the Commissioner and the extension of the route prayed for by the petitioners was declined. Therefore, the petitioners have made this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, impeaching the impugned order as illegal, void, wrongful and without jurisdiction, on the grounds: - -

(3.) THE facts, that the petitioners as well as the respondent are transporters, that the petitioners had been operating buses with one permit with two return trips each on Patiala -Bassi via Rajpura route, and that the respondent had been plying buses on Roper -Sirhind route via Morinda and Bassi, which includes distance of 9 miles from Morinda to Bassi, are not disputed. The further facts, that the petitioners had applied for extension of Patiala -Bassi route via Rajpura, from Bassi to Morinda, that the said extension of the route was allowed to them by the Commissioner, and on appeal the Tribunal, by the impugned order, had set aside the order of the Commissioner and declined the extension of the said route to the petitioners, are also admitted.