JASBIR SINGH, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed with a prayer to issue a writ of certiorari to quash order dated February 21, 2005, passed by respondent No. 1, and also order dated August 22, 2003, passed by respondent No. 4. It is primary grievance of the petitioner that the order dated August 22, 2003, has been passed by an officer, who was not competent to do so. Counsel for the petitioner prays that this writ petition be allowed and the orders under challenge be set aside. Be that as it may, on merits, this Court feels that the petitioner has no case. The appellate authority has observed thus: "As per own case of the appellant Society, the original route allotted to the appellant in the year 1993-94 was route No. 41 from Janesron to Sambhi via Gorgarh, Amargarh, Sandhir, Nilokheri, Seedhpur, Kamalpur. The same was lateron amended in the year 1995 and the route was made from Janesron to Karnal via Bibipur, Kamalpur, Darar, Baldi. Earlier as well, the extension was sought by the appellant society and however, the same was declined vide order dated 18.7.2002 as the same did not fall within the policy dated 18.1.2002 as the extension was more than 29 kilometers. The said order has become final. Appellate Society again applied for amendment/ extension in the original route and the said request was also declined vide letter dated 30.4.2003 on the plea that the already extension was granted in the original route from Janesron to Karnal via Bibipur, Kamalpur, Darar. The said order has also become final. The present application was again given seeking an extension from Janesron to Indri. However, on the same ground extension has been declined as the appellant was already granted extension from Janesron to Karnal, i.e., extension of 21 kilometers. As per policy conditions No. 2,6 and 12, maximum extension including the previous extension modification, if any, in the original route granted in the year 1993-94 can be extended upto 29 Kms. A very perusal of condition No. 1 of the policy dated 18.1.2002 shows that modification/ extension in the original route granted is one and the same thing. Hence, there is no force in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that previous modification in the route at the request of the appellant Society cannot be considered for the purpose of considering the application as to whether the same falls within the policy conditions dated 18.1.2002. The request of the appellant society has been declined by the competent authority in view of the fact that already extension/ modification in the route was granted in favour of the appellant society and if the present request is accepted, the same would exceed the limit of 29 kilometers for extension as per the policy under which the present application has been made. Hence, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by the competent authority in rejecting the request of the appellant Society."
(2.) IT is apparent from the records that earlier also, application, moved by the petitioner, seeking extension of route permit was dismissed on July 18, 2002. Petitioner remained satisfied and did not challenge that order subsequently. Again application was moved for the same relief, which, this Court feels, was rightly dismissed. Otherwise also, it has rightly been observed by the Appellate Tribunal that if extension is granted, as claimed by the petitioner, it will be beyond the permissible limit under the transport policy. No case is made out for interference. Dismissed.;