Mr. Augustine George Masih, J. (Oral):- Through this writ petition, petitioner is challenging the order dated 29.11.2012 (Annexure P-6) passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab dismissing the revision petition preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 22.7.2011 (Annexure P-5) passed by the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab-respondent No.2 directing the petitioner to surrender permit Nos.38/23 to 25, 1077/SC-71 and 2033/SC-74 to the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jalandhar with a further direction to this authority to issue regular permits to Hoshiarpur Express Transport Co.Ltd.Hoshiarpur-respondent No.3.

2. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned orders dated 29.4.2012 (Annexure P-6) and 22.7.2011 (Annexure P- 5) cannot sustain as the directions issued therein are in violation of Sections 70, 72 and 82 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 1988 Act). Referring to Section 2(31), 2(40) and 2(47) of the 1988 Act, it is contended that permit can only be transferred if it is a stage carriage vehicle. In the absence of any stage carriage vehicle, no permit can be transferred. At present, petitioner is operating the routes for which the permits had been granted for the buses, which are owned by the petitioner and, therefore, the impugned orders cannot sustain.

3. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents has contended that the permit is granted to a person and it is thereafter that the permit is operated through a stage carriage vehicle. Once the said permit is transferred in the name of the person by the authorities under the Motor Vehicle Act for operating the said permit, vehicle has to be shown to the competent authority and it is only thereafter that the permit becomes operational. It can even be done simultaneously or at a later stage after the permit has been issued. Referring to Section 83 of the 1988 Act, he contends that the vehicle can be replaced by the permit holder with the permission of the competent authority. In any case, he contends that present is a case where restoration of the permit has been ordered by the competent authority to the petitioner, who is the rightful owner in the light of the decree passed in its favour by the Civil Court. He accordingly contends that the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed as the orders impugned in the same are in accordance with law.

4. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the records of the case.

5. Present is a case where a fraud was played upon respondent No.3 by the petitioner in connivance with the Managing Director of respondent No.3, Shri Daljit Singh Latti. The story itself reveals that Hoshiarpur Express Transport Co.Ltd. Hoshiarpur (respondent No.3) was originally holding five permits and nine routes. Three Buses No.PAB 881, PUH 2789 and PUH 2251 were owned by respondent No.3, on which these five stage carriage permits were being run. On 20.3.1991, as per the orders of the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab, these three Buses along with routes of above five stage carriage permits were transferred to the name of Ludhiana Motor Finance Co.Pvt.Ltd.Ludhiana (petitioner) in the light of the judgment and decree passed by Sub Judge Ist Class, Ludhiana on 10.11.1990. Respondent No.3 challenged the judgment and decree passed by the Sub Judge Ist Class, Ludhiana in Civil Suit No.120 of 16.8.1994, alleging that the said judgment and decree was obtained by playing fraud upon the respondent company as the previous Managing Director Shri Daljit Singh Latti had joined hands with the petitioner, i.e., the transferee company without any power or authority to enter into reference of arbitration and he did so in exercise of his individual capacity.

6. After trial, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana decided all the issues framed in the suit in favour of respondent No.3, decreeing the suit with costs vide orde