IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

306 (03 cases) CWP-9425-2024 Date of Decision :20.03.2025 Subhakashdeep Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents CWP-10671-2024 Puneet Bus Service Regd. Mansa ...Petitioner Versus State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab and others ...Respondents CWP-19547-2024 Laddi Bus Service Regd. Bathinda ...Petitioner Versus State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Present: Mr. Manuj Nagrath, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-9425-2024.

None for the petitioner in CWP-10671-2024.

Mr. Lekh Raj Sharma, Advocate for petitioner in CWP-19547-2024 and for respondent No.5 in CWP-9425-2024.

Mr. Malkiat Singh, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Rajinder Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.6 in CWP-9425-2024 for respondent No.5 in CWP-19547-2024 &

for respondent No.3 in CWP-10671-2024.

Mr. Anupam Singla, Advocate for respondent-PRTC.

* * *

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)

1. In the present bunch of petitions, the challenge is to the order dated 04.03.2024 (Annexure P/8) passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal by which, the permit qua the route of Mansa to Bathinda, which was issued in favour of the petitioner-Subhakashdeep Singh has been cancelled and the same has been temporarily issued in favour of M/s Laddi Bus Service, Regd. Bathinda i.e. the petitioner in CWP-19547-2024.

2. The prayer in the petition filed by the petitioner-M/s Laddi Bus Service, Regd. Bathinda (CWP-19547-2024) is that rather than allocating the temporary permit in favour of petitioner-M/s Laddi Bus Service, Regd. Bathinda after withdrawing the same from the petitioner- Subhakashdeep Singh, the same should have been given to the petitioner-M/s Laddi Bus Service, Regd. Bathinda on regular basis instead till the same is claimed by any of the State Transport Undertaking.

3. Certain facts needs to be mentioned for the correct appreciation of the issue in hand.

4. A public notice was issued by the State Transport Commissioner dated 06.09.2021 (Annexure P/2) inviting applications for the grant of permits on various routes.In the present petitions, the route in question was mentioned at Sr. No.48 of the public notice dated 06.09.2021 (Annexure P/2) i.e. from Mansa to Bathinda via Mussa, Talwandi, Kotshmir.

5. It may be noticed that the number of permits to be granted on the said route were three. Out of the total three route permits, 60% permit were to be granted to the private operators and 40% to the State Transport Undertaking i.e. out of total 03 permits, 02 permits are to be granted to the private operators and 01 permit is to be granted to the State Transport Undertaking. Keeping in view the applications filed, 25 applications which were found in order, have been considered by the State Transport Commissioner for the allotment of the permits. It may be noticed that none of the State Transport Undertaking filed an application for the grant of permit qua the said route.

6. Thereafter, evaluation of 25 applications was done by the State Transport Commissioner for the grant of permit on the route in question and an order was passed by the State Transport Commissioner on 27.12.2021(Annexure P/5) granting all the three permits in favour of private operators and the successful applicants were, Anshika Arora, M/s Nirvair Motors and Subhakashdeep Singh.

7. The grant of permit by the State Transport Commissioner vide order dated 27.12.2021(Annexure P/5) was challenged by petitioner-Laddi Bus Service, Regd. Bathinda by filing an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The said appeal came to be decided by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal vide impugned order dated 04.03.2024 (Annexure P/8) whereby, the Appellate Tribunal has held that as out of the 03 permits, one permit was necessarily to be granted to the State Transport Undertaking but, as no application was filed by the State Transport Undertaking, 03 permit could not have been gr