MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, J. - (1.) AS identical questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, I propose to dispose of the instant writ petitions, by virtue of this common order to avoid the repetition. However, the facts, which are essential to be noticed for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the writ petitions, have been extracted from (1) CWP No.15186 of 2010 titled as "Jain Motors Regd. Patiala. v. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal & Ors. " for ready reference in this context.
(2.) THE epitome of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the present writ petitions and emanating from the record, is that in the wake of notice published in the Motor Transport Gazette Weekly, Chandigarh dated 1.1.1998, the petitioner and other bus operators applied for the grant of regular stage carriage permits for plying the buses on Patran -Talwandi Sabo via Moonak, Beniwal etc. route for a period of five years, in view of the provisions of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and The Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act and relevant rules"). The matter was considered in the meeting held on 18.6.1998. While granting the indicated stage carriage permits to the General Manager, the Punjab Road Transport Corporation (in short "the PRTC"), the application of the petitioner was rejected by the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab -respondent No.2 (for short "the STC"), by virtue of impugned order dated 17.4.2000 (Annexure P1). Aggrieved by the order (Annexure P1), the appeal (Annexure P2) filed by the petitioner was dismissed as well, being time barred, by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab -respondent No.l (for brevity "the STAT"). Thereafter, it (petitioner) filed CWP No.8461 of 2007 and a Division Bench of this Court remanded the matter back to the STAT for re -adjudication of the issue of limitation, through the medium of order dated 21.8.2007 (Annexure P3).
(3.) IN pursuance of the order (Annexure P3), the STAT again dismissed the appeal of the petitioner as time barred, by way of impugned order dated 1.2.2010 (Annexure P4).;