Prem Chand Jain, J. - (1.) THE Patiala Bus Sirhind (P) Limited, Sirhind and the Sirhind -Khanna Transporters (P) Limited, Sirhind (hereinafter referred to as the Appellants) held one permit for two return trips each on Patiala -Bassi via Rajpura route. They applied to the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab, Respondent No. 2, for the extension of the route beyond Bassi upto Morinda. The contents of their application were published under Section 57(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in the weekly 'Shamsher Hind' Patiala on November 1, 1973, for inviting representations. The Ambala Bus Syndicate (Private) Limited, Ropar, Respondent No. 3, held route permits to cover the portion between Bassi and Morinda. No representation was filed by Respondent No. 3 in writing before the appointed date against the extension of the route prayed for by the Appellants. The State Transport Commissioner, Respondent No. 2, considered the prayer of the Appellants on February 11, 1974. Respondent No. 3 appeared before Respondent No. 2, on the date fixed and objected to the grant of the extension of the route on the ground that it would adversely affect its business. The said objection did not prevail with Respondent No. 2 for the reason that the same had not been made within the time limit and no copy thereof had been furnished to the Appellants. Finding that the extension of the route prayed for was in the interest of the public, the Commissioner, Respondent No. 2, allowed the application of the Appellants and extended Patiala -Bassi via Rajpura route upto Morinda.
(2.) FEELING aggrieved from the order of Respondent No. 2, Respondent No. 3 preferred an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Respondent No. 1, which was allowed on June 5, 1974 and the order of Respondent No. 2 was set aside. The Appellants challenged the legality of the said order in this Court by filing C.W.P. No. 2052 of 1974, which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on August 27, 1974. Still dissatisfied, letters patent appeals were filed by the Appellants separately which were partly allowed on March 15, 1977 and the case was remitted back to Respondent No. 1 for a fresh decision. The appeal was again heard by Respondent No. 1 on merits after remand and was dismissed on the ground that it was not maintainable because Respondent No. 3 (Appellant before Respondent No. 1) had not filed representation in writing under Sub -section (3) of Section 57 of the Act. The prayer made on behalf of Respondent No. 3 to the effect that the appeal be treated as a revision under Section 64 -A of the Act was also negatived on the ground 'that the order of the State Transport Commissioner was appealable under Section 64(1)(f) of the Act.
(3.) FEELING aggrieved from the order of Respondent No. 1, Respondent No. 3 filed C.W.P. No. 4238 of 1978 in this Court. The learned Single Judge, who heard the petition, allowed the same on January 30, 1979 and quashed the order of Respondent No. 1 dated September 7, 1978, copy Annexure P. 3 and remitted the case to Respondent No. 1 for hearing the same as a revision. It is against the said judgment of the learned Single Judge that the present appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent has been filed.;