VIJENDER JAIN,J. - (1.) THE petitioners, in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, have sought quashing of order dated 5.3.2004 (Annexure P-2, which has been described as the proceedings of the meeting qua item No. 6) passed by the Additional State Transport Commissioner, Punjab (respondent No. 3) whereby the application filed by respondent No. 5- Sukhminder Singh for curtailment/diversion/extension of the route for which he was holding a mini bus permit No. 1079/MB/R/03 with four return trips daily was accepted. They have also prayed that order dated 4.8.2004 (Annexure P-3) passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab (hereinafter described as 'the STAT') vide which the revision petitions preferred against cumulative order dated 5.3.2004 of respondent No. 3 have been dismissed being time barred, be quashed. Still further, the petitioners have made a prayer that Rule 122 of the Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 be declared as ultra vires to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
(2.) THE petitioners have filed the present petition purportedly as public interest litigation by styling themselves as the residents of the areas, who were affected by the curtailment/diversion/extension of the route in question. They have made a pointed reference to the finding of the STAT recorded in Annexure P-3, which, while commenting upon the curtailments/diversion/ extension, has observed as under :- "Thus, in my view, the curtailments, diversion and extension granted in these cases by the RTA have not served the public convenience. Secondly, I am of the view, that it would rather have been expedient to grant separate permits in respect of the varied route instead of allowing the applications of the private respondents. Finding on the second point, thus, goes in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents." The above reproduced finding was not challenged by the State and hence, the same assumed finality, but it lost its relevance for the State ostensibly because the revision petitions were dismissed on the issue of limitation. In their written statement, respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have taken up an objection that the present writ petition could not be termed as a public interest litigation as petitioner No. 1 was a rival operator and a transporter himself. They have averred that two earlier petitions, i.e. CWP Nos. 12079 of 2004 and 6219 of 2005 filed for grant of similar relief were dismissed as withdrawn and even the present petitioner Nos. 1 to 7 were the petitioners at the same serial numbers in the latter petition, i.e. CWP No. 6219 of 2005, which was also filed in public interest, wherein also, a similar objection was taken by them that three out of ten petitioners therein were operators themselves and faced with that situation, the said writ petition was withdrawn with leave and liberty to take recourse to appropriate remedy for redress of the grievances. It has also been stated that the present petition has been filed by excluding those three persons, but in any eventuality, it remains a continuation of the earlier proceedings and hence, the same, in the garb of a public interest litigation, is not maintainable and deserves dismissal as it seeks to serve a personal interest.
(3.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length and have perused the record.;