- (1.) THE Pepsu Road Transport corporation, Patiala (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner Corporation') has filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 13-9-2004, passed by the state Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab, chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate Tribunal'), whereby the order dated 24-1-1996, passed by the State transport Commissioner, Punjab, exercising the powers of Regional Transport Authority, patiala (hereinafter referred to as 'the STC'j granting all the four regular stage carriage permits on Fatehgarh Sahib-Talwandi Sabo via Sirhind, Nabha, Sangrur, Barnala, bathinda route (hereinafter referred to as 'the route in question') in favour of the petitioner Corporation for a period of five years in the public interest, has been set aside and those permits have been granted to respondents No. 3 to 5 each on regular basis with half trip daily on the route in question.
(2.) IN the instant case, with a view to provide direct bus service on the route in question for the convenience of the travelling public, the applications were invited for grant of four regular stage carriage permits for plying two return trips daily, vide a notice dated 15-12-1992. In response thereto, 115 applications were received. The STC, after considering the claim of all the eligible candidates, granted all the four stage carriage permits with two return trips daily to the petitioner Corporation, while recording the finding that portion of the proposed route from Bathinda to Kotshamir falls on the monopoly route of PRTC and in view of clause (4) of the Transport Scheme, notified by the punjab Government vide notification dated 9-8-1990, all operations existing or future on monopoly routes shall exclusively be undertaken by the State Transport undertakings. Since the route in question was found to be a monopoly route, therefore, none of the private applicants was considered eligible for grant of any of these permits in view of the abovesaid notified and approved Transport Scheme.
(3.) FEELING aggrieved against the said order, three separate appeals were filed by respondents No. 3 to 5. During the pendency of those appeals, a status report was sought by the Appellate Tribunal from the secretary, Regional Transport Authority, who vide his letter dated 5-7-2004 intimated the appellate Tribunal that all the four permits in question have been surrendered by the petitioner Corporation and that to cater the needs of the travelling public, the Regional transport Authority has invited fresh applications for grant of the permits in question vide notice published on 8-7-2002. In response thereto, 64 applications were received, which were pending consideration. The Appellate Tribunal, while taking into consideration the fact that during the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner corporation surrendered four permits, therefore, the same are to be allotted to the unsuccessful applicants, who had applied for those permits before the re-advertisement, allowed all the three appeals and each of the three appellants was granted a regular stage carriage permit on regular basis with half trip daily on the route in question.;