- (1.) The petitioner Society has filed this writ petition under 's 226/227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to partly quash the order dated 22.3.2006, passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab, whereby after setting aside the order passed by the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab, the petitioner has been granted increase in return trips from one to two daily against permit Nos. 19/7 and 19/8.
(2.) In the present case, the petitioner society is having four stage carriage permits with four return trips daily on Amritsar-Dera Baba Nanak route. The petitioner moved an application to the Regional Transport Authority (RTA), Jalandhar, for the grant of increase in trips from 1 to 2 on each of the said four permits. The Secretary, RTA, Jalandhar, who conducted survey of the route, recommended the proposed increase in the trips in the public interest. Thereafter, the matter was considered by the RTA by providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner; and vide order dated 9.11.2004, the application filed by the petitioner was rejected on the ground that sufficient bus service is already available on the route in question, which is duly catering to the need of the commuters quite satisfactorily and there is no demand from the public for addition of more bus service on the said route. It was also observed that the application has been filed by the petitioner to grab more mileage than to serve the convenience of the travelling public, therefore, the request made by the petitioner society was not in the interest of public.
(3.) Against the said order, the petitioner society filed an appeal before before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab. The Tribunal has partly allowed the said appeal, while observing as under : "Each of the four permits of the appellant carries one return trips daily and it seeks increase of return trips from one to two against each permit. I am of the view that prayer for increase in trips against each permit would result in grant of excessive mileage to the appellant. It would be in the public interest, if only against two permits increase in trips from one to two daily is allowed to the appellant. I am satisfied that it would not be expedient to grant separate permits on the route in question and that the grant of increase in trips against two permits is in the public interest and for public convenience. For the reason recorded above, the appeal is partly allowed. Order under appeal is partly set aside. Increase in return trips from one to two daily is granted to the appellant against its two permits namely permit No. 19/5 and 19/6 on the route in question. Application for increase in trips against permit Nos. 19/7 and 19/8 is declined.";