Punjab-Haryana High Court
The Bajwa Bus Service Regd. Batala vs State Transport Appellate Tribunal ... on 22 October, 2009
Author: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.12493 of 2007 (O&M)
Date of decision: 22nd October, 2009
The Bajwa Bus Service Regd. Batala
... Petitioner
Versus
State Transport Appellate Tribunal Punjab and others
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
Present: Mr. Baldev Kapoor, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Addl. AG Punjab
for respondents No.1 and 2.
Mr. Raj Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.3.
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)
Present writ petition was filed by Bajwa Bus Service Regd. Batala, District Gurdaspur assailing the order (Annexure P-6) passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab dated 10th July, 2007. State Transport Commissioner, Punjab had granted one regular stage carriage permit with four return trips daily for plying buses on Amritsar - Tahli Sahib route each in favour of the petitioner and one Sucha Singh son of Bishan Singh on 8th June, 2005. This order was challenged, as respondents No.3 and 4 had filed appeals before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal had set aside the order passed by the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab and had cancelled the permit granted in favour of the petitioner and one Sucha Singh. The permit held by the petitioner was granted in favour of respondent No.3, The Harindra Transport Cooperative Society Limited, Hall Gate, Amritsar. The order of the Appellate Tribunal has been impugned in the present writ petition.
Civil Writ Petition No.12493 of 2007 (O&M) 2
During the pendency of the writ petition, a compromise has been arrived at between the petitioner and respondent No.3. According to the compromise dated 5th September, 2009, respondent No.3 has agreed to surrender the permit in favour of the petitioner applicant. Respondent No.3 has filed reply to the application, wherein he has admitted the factum of compromise and has prayed that he has no objection in case present application is allowed.
Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, appearing for the State, submits that he has no instructions at present, therefore, liberty may be granted to him to pray for recall of the order in case writ petition is allowed.
Taking into consideration that compromise has been arrived between the petitioner and respondent No.3, the order passed by the State Appellate Tribunal, Punjab is set aside and order passed by the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab qua the petitioner is restored. However, the State will have the liberty to apply for recall of the order, if necessary.
With these observations, present petition is disposed of.
[KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE October 22, 2009 rps