- (1.) This order shall dispose of the following writ petitions: 1. CWP No.19388 of 2012 (Sheikhupura Transport Company v. STAT and others). 2. CWP No.21203 of 2012 (Kartar Bus Service Ltd., Jalandhar v. STAT and others). 3. CWP No.21282 of 2012 (M/s Jalandhar Ludhiana Transport Company Regd. v. STAT and others).
(2.) The brief facts which would require notice are that a notice dated 9.12.1997 was published in the Motor Transport Gazette Weekly, Chandigarh as also Daily Ajit dated 22.12.1997 whereby applications had been invited for the two regular stage carriage permits for plying two return trips on Amritsar to Kiratpur Sahib Via Tarn Taran, Khadur Sahib, Goindwal Sahib, Fattu Dhinga, Kapurthala, Jalandhar, Phagwara, Banga, Naura, Garhshanker, Karimpur, Singhpur, Anandpur Sahib route (to be referred to as 'the route in question'). There were 242 applicants including the present petitioners for the route in question. Vide order dated 21.8.2000 passed by the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab, one regular stage carriage permit for plying one return trip each was granted in favour of the State Transport Undertaking i.e. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Kapurthala Depot and Deol Co-operative Transport Society, Dinanagar, District Gurdaspur. Against such order dated 21.8.2000, five unsuccessful applicants including the petitioners herein filed appeals before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal.
(3.) It is contended that respondent No.1 i.e. Tribunal having relied upon a status report dated 11.7.2008 received from the office of Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jalandhar noticed that the permit granted in favour of Deol Co-operative Transport Society, Dinanagar was lying vacant, and granted one regular stage carriage permit with one return trip in favour of respondent No.3 i.e. Amrit Transport Company Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that such impugned order dated 7.9.2012 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab is totally without justification and without even perusing the material that is available on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further asserted that the Tribunal has erred inasmuch as granting one regular stage carriage permit to ply one return trip in favour of respondent No.3 i.e. Amrit Transport Company Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana inspite of the fact that at the time of arguments, such respondent had restricted its claim for only half return trip i.e. single trip in terms of making statement that it was not in a position to pay the requisite taxes and dues to ply one return trip.;