IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision :28.08.2025 M/s Attri Bus Service ..Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Present: Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Senior Advocate with Mr. Gaurav Rana, Advocate for the petitioner.

* * *

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)

1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the order dated 20.05.2025 (Annexure P/11) passed by respondent No.2-DTO-cum- Secretary Regional Transport Authority, Panchkula by which, the prayer of the petitioner to extend his route to Saha to Shahbad from Panchkula to Saha (Panchkula, Kot, Barwala, Mauli, Shah Azadpur, Patrehri, Saha) which was the route that was granted vide permit No.HR2021-SC-0054A, has been declined on the ground that to the petitioner the same is not permissible keeping in view the terms and conditions of the Stage Carriage Scheme, 2016 under which scheme the permit was allotted.

2. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argues that the power to amend the said scheme of 2016 exists with the State keeping in view Section 102 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘1988 Act’) hence, the reason given by the State while declining the request of the petitioner to extend his route by stating that the same is not permissible under law, is incorrect and the impugned order dated 20.05.2025 (Annexure P/11) is liable to be set aside on this ground itself.

3. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though it is open for the respondents to say that though, the power to amend the said scheme of 2016 exists with State but, the fact that State is not inclined to do so is another aspect which would be in consonance with Section 102 of the 1988 Act as even the language of the said provisions stipulates that the State has power to amend a scheme, if it deems necessary to do so.

4. We have heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record with his able assistance.

5. It may be noticed that the allotment of a permit to the petitioner was done as per the Stage Carriage Scheme, 2016 (for short, ‘2016 Scheme’) which scheme was notified on 17.02.2017. It is worthwhile to take note of clause 2(iv) of the said scheme of 2016, which stipulates that variations in the route as per the provisions of the 1988 Act shall become the part of the schedule and the starting and terminating point of the route shall not be altered in case of variation and no extension or curtailment in the route shall be allowed. Relevant provision is as under:-

2(iv) Variation in the route as per provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 shall become part of the Schedule. The termini (starting and terminating points of the route) shall be not be altered in case of variation, No extension or curtailment shall be allowed in the routes.”

6. The above noted provision have been stipulated in the 2016 Scheme have been conceded by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner while addressing the arguments.

7. It may be noticed that Section 102 of the 1988 Act gives the power to the State to cancel or modify a scheme which has been approved but, whether the said action needs to be taken or not is in the discretion of the State. Once while exercising the said discretion, in order to have uniformity qua all the route permits allowed as per the 2016 Scheme that the starting and terminating points while granting the permits will not be altered, declining the request of the petitioner that his route should be extended so as to mitigate the hardship of the passengers by not choosing to amend the said scheme, has rightly been declined by the authorities concerned keeping in view the self imposed embargo imposed by the State itself under 2016 Scheme.

8. Once, there is a self imposed embargo imposed by State upon itself while refusing to amend the said scheme of 2016 so as to alter the starting and finishing point of the routes alr