Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S MUKTSAR FAZILKA BUS SERVICE REGISTER versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/S MUKTSAR FAZILKA BUS SERVICE REGISTER v. STATE OF PUNJAB & Ors. - CWP-8849-2005 [2005] RD-P&H 94 (10 August 2005)

Civil Writ Petition No.8849 of 2005.

M/s Muktsar Fazilka Bus Service Registered Versus

State of Punjab and others.

...

Present: Mr.Rupinder K. Khosla, Advocate for the petitioners.

...

S.N. Aggarwal, J.

By way of this writ petition, the petitioners seek extension of time for collecting route permits which were granted to them by the respondents on 26.9.2002, 21.3.2003, 4.8.2003 and 3.9.2004.

These routes permits were to be collected by the petitioners from the office of Regional Transport Authority, Ferozepur within a period of three to four months from the date of sanction but the said permits were not collected within the stipulated period. However, petitioner No.1 made an application dated 3.1.2005 to the respondents seeking extension of time for collecting the said route permits. Similar applications were made by petitioner Nos.2 and 3 on the same date (Annexure P-2).

The reason given by these petitioners in the said letter of extension was that they could not collect the route permits in time limit granted by the respondents as they could not purchase the vehicles. It was further mentioned in the said letter that now they have arranged to purchase the Mini Buses. Hence, Civil Writ Petition No.8849 of 2005.

extension of time was prayed so that the route permits could be collected.

The petitioners made reference to the general notice issued by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Ferozepur on 13.10.2004 (Annexure P- 3) by which the said authority had extended time limit for collecting the route permits by three months in general for all those persons who were granted route permits on or after 1.4.2003. The said period was extended upto 13.1.2005.

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the now the petitioners are in a position to start operating on the said route as they have gathered the financial resources for putting the buses on the said route.

This submission has been considered by us. It only deserves to be rejected. The petitioners were allotted route permits about more than one year to two years prior to the filing of the said applications for extension of time and in two cases more than two years prior to the filing of the applications on 3.1.2005. The route permits were to be collected within a period of three to four months.The petitioners had not only failed to collect the route permits within the stipulated period from the office of the respondents but also remained silent thereafter for a long time. They failed to avail the route permits which also could not be utilized by any other person. Therefore, the petitioners have caused undue delay in collecting the route permits without any reasonable cause. If they were unable to purchase the buses, then they could surrender the route permits. But they did not do this either.

The petitioners themselves pleaded in their letter dated 3.1.2005 (Annexure P-2) that on that date they were in a position to purchase the buses and they prayed for extension of time for collecting the route permits. This assertion made by the petitioners in their letter dated 3.1.2005 also appears to be Civil Writ Petition No.8849 of 2005.

fallacious because if it had been so they could have collected the route permits as the time was extended by the Regional Transport Authority by general notice dated 13.10.2004 (Anneuxre P-3) according to which they could do so upto 13.1.2005 but the petitioners failed to avail of the said notice . Instead the petitioners have filed the present writ petition again to seek further extension of time for collecting the route permits pleading the same facts that now they are in a position to purchase the mini buses as they have gathered financial resources.

This assertion is merely repetition of earlier undertaking given by them in their letter dated 3.1.2005 which proved to be futile.

The petitioners have failed to point out any legal provision by which they have the right to seek extension and the respondents were under obligation to extend time for collecting route permits.

In the light of above discussion, we find no merit in the present writ petition and the same is dismissed.

( S. N. Aggarwal )

Judge

July 26,2005. ( J. S. Khehar )

Jaggi Judge

Civil Writ Petition No.8849 of 2005.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.