PUNJAB STATE Vs. GURIA BUS SERVICE PVT. LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this judgment I dispose of two Writ Petition Nos. 8121 of 1996 of Punjab v. M/s. Guria Bus Service and another) and 7006 of 1996 M/s Guria Bus Service Pvt. Ltd. v. State Transport Commissioner and others) 1995(2) RRR 6(P&H) as the same question of fact and law is involved therein.

(2.) IN the C.W.P. No. 8121 of 1996 filed by the State of Punjab prayer has been made for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned judgment/order dated 28.2.1996 (Annexure P9) passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab, while in C.W.P. No. 7006 of 1996 filed by M/s. Guria Bus Service Pvt. Ltd. prayer has been made for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the State Transport Commissioner and the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Ferozepur, respondents Nos. 1 and 2, respectively to release two permits with one retun trip in favour of the petitioner on Khuban-Chandigarh route, in pursuance of the judgment dated 28.2.1996, referred to above, passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. I am taking up the facts from C.W.P. No. 8121 of 1996 because the fate of the other writ petition depends upon the decision of this writ petition. If C.W.P. No. 8121 of 1996 is dismissed, the writ petition filed by M/s. Guria Bus Service Pvt. Ltd. will succeed, and if C.W.P. No. 8121 of 1996 is allowed as prayed for, the second writ petition, i.e. C.W.P. No. 7006 of 1996, would become infructuous.

(3.) THE grouse of the petitioner is that the judgment dated 28.2.1996 had been given after three years against the directions of the High Court, which ordered for the decision within three months and secondly the Tribunal did not hear the petitioner, as is apparent from its order/judgment dated 28.2.1996. It is also alleged by the petitioner that there was no basis for the Tribunal to satisfy itself that the conditions mentioned in the proviso to Section 47 (1-H) of the Act had not been fulfilled by the petitioner. The remarks given by the Tribunal in its order dated 28.2.1996 are not borne out from the record. The order of the Tribunal is Annexure P9. In short the order (Annexure P9) is challenged in the present writ petition further on the grounds that the decision was given ex parte without giving any opportunity to the petitioner (Department) and, in fact, it has come to know of the order dated 28.2.1996 only on its publication in the Punjab Gazette.