M.S.LIBERHAN, J. - (1.) THIS judgment will dispose of civil writ petitions No. 4876, 5926 and 6376 of 1992 as these are directed against the same order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal.
(2.) IN writ petition No. 4876 of 1992, the only grievance of the State is, that the State Transport Commissioner invited applications for 8 regular permits with 4 trips from Budhlada to Amritsar via Bhatinda and granted 6 regular permits with 3 return trips and the Appellate Tribunal had no jurisdiction to grant two regular and one return trip permits which were not granted by the State Transport Commissioner. The Appellate Authority's order is without jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the respondents challenged the locus standi of the State on to impugn the order of the Appellate Authority, there being no adverse order against the State and the State was not an appellant before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The order being without jurisdiction was refuted- Mr. Ashu M. Punchhi, learned counsel for one of the respondents contends, that in order to seek the implementation of the impugned order of the Appellate Authority, the respondents sought a writ of mandamus in which the State took an objection, that the order of the Appellate Authority was without jurisdiction, consequently the same could not be implemented. The plea of the State was rejected and the order was held to be within jurisdiction. The order of this Court was further reconfirmed by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court. Finding of the Court were averred to operate as constructive res-judicata. Reference to the finding recorded in Gill Bus Service (regd.) Amritsar v. State of Punjab through the Secretary, Punjab Transport Department Civil Secretariat Chandigarh and Anr. , (1992-1) 101 P. L. R. 678 was made.
(3.) WE find force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents. There is no gain saying that permits to all other applicants were rejected by the State Transport Commissioner. None of the applicant before the State Transport Commissioner preferred an appeal except the respondents before us. The State was neither an appellant before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal nor was an applicant before the State Transport Commissioner petitioner has failed to point out anything to show that the impugned order adversely affected the interest of the State.;