Allowed¶34

Ashok Kumar v. S T a T Pb & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC27 Oct 2025CWP/23542/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Stage carriage permit route curtailment; Kahneke–Pakho Kalan via Dhaula Ghunas Tapa Tajoke route from Tapa via Dhilwan Mour Ugoke; State Transport Commissioner (S.T.C.) order dated 17.05.2011; State Transport Appellate Tribunal Punjab Revision No. 43 of 2012 order dated 04.10.2012 set aside; survey report Annexure P-1 evidentiary value versus mere presumptions; 60% curtailment permissible where total route length does not exceed 24 km; increase in passenger traffic on proposed extension; inconvenience to travelling public on curtailed portion; Secretary Regional Transport Authority Patiala; CWP-23542-2012; Kuldeep Tiwari J.; decided 27.10.2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; the Tribunal's impugned order dated 04.10.2012 set aside and the S.T.C.'s order dated 17.05.2011 upheld. ¶34

Ashok Kumar Vs S T a T Pb & Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed; the Tribunal's impugned order dated 04.10.2012 set aside and the S.T.C.'s order dated 17.05.2011 upheld.

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the Tribunal's order dated 04.10.2012 setting aside the S.T.C.'s order dated 17.05.2011 (which permitted curtailment of the petitioner's stage carriage permit route) was sustainable, given the undisputed survey report on which the S.T.C.'s decision was founded. +1 more

¶28

Court's answer

The S.T.C.'s order dated 17.05.2011 was based on the survey report and supported by cogent reasoning; the Tribunal interfered with it without substantial basis, and as no evidence was placed on record to discredit the survey report, the impugned order warrants interference.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order dated 04.10.2012 passed by respondent No.1 rests on mere presumptions, whereas the order dated 17.05.2011 passed by the S.T.C. is founded on a duly conducted survey possessing evidentiary value.

¶30

Key takeaways

The survey report, which is undisputed and annexed as Annexure P-1 to the writ petition, forms the foundational basis for the S.T.C.'s order dated 17.05.2011.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Kuldeep Tiwari, J., oral) — CWP-23542-2012, decided 27.10.2025: Allowed. On the petitioner Ashok Kumar's application, respondent No.2 (Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Patiala), exercising powers conferred by the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab, passed an order dated 17.05.2011 allowing regular curtailment of the petitioner's one stage carriage permit (four return trips daily) on the Kahneke–Pakho Kalan via Dhaula, Ghunas, Tapa, Tajoke route from Tapa via Dhilwan Mour Ugoke. Respondent No.3's Revision No. 43 of 2012 led the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab to set aside that order vide order dated 04.10.2012 (observing that a 13.2 kms curtailment of the 23.8 kms route would deprive 60% of the original route of travelling facility), directing the petitioner to ply on the original route. Allowing the writ petition, the Court held that the Tribunal's order rested on mere presumptions while the S.T.C.'s order was founded on a duly conducted survey (undisputed, Annexure P-1) recording substantial growth in passenger traffic on the proposed extension and sufficiency of bus service on the curtailed portion; no evidence discredited the survey report. Counsel for respondent No.3 conceded that curtailment up to 60% of the original route can be permitted where total route length does not exceed 24 km. Tribunal's order set aside; S.T.C.'s order upheld.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

225 CWP-23542-2012 Date of Decision : October 27, 2025

ASHOK KUMAR

-PETITIONER

V/S

STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PUNJAB AND ORS.

¶7

-RESPONDENTS

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI

¶9

Present: Mr. P.S. Bawa, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. T.P.S. Walia, A.A.G., Punjab.

¶11

Mr. Raj Kaushik, Advocate for the respondent No.3.

¶12

¶13

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)

¶14

Upon an application submitted by the petitioner, the respondent No.2- Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Patiala, in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab, passed an order dated 17.05.2011, thereby allowing the regular curtailment of the petitioner’s one stage carriage permit with four return trips daily on Kahneke–Pakho Kalan via Dhaula, Ghunas, Tapa, Tajoke route from Tapa via Dhilwan Mour Ugoke.

¶15

The order ( supra ) was assailed by the respondent No.3, a private individual, through filing Revision No. 43 of 2012 before the respondent No.1- State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab. Vide order dated 04.10.2012, the Tribunal observed that when the curtailment is of 13.2

¶16

DEVINDER YADAV 2025.10.29 09:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶17

CWP-23542-2012 2

¶18

kms from the total length of 23.8 kms, then 60% of the original route goes without providing the traveling facility and it would defeat the purpose of granting of permit on the route Kahneke-Pakho Kalan. The Tribunal further observed that such curtailment would cause inconvenience to the commuting public, and that, the approval granted by the S.T.C. was issued without adequate consideration of the actual circumstances. Consequently, the order dated 17.05.2011 was set aside, and the petitioner was directed to immediately ply the bus on the original route. Aggrieved by the Tribunal’s order dated 04.10.2012, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on the survey report, which formed the basis of the S.T.C.’s decision, submits that the said report indicates a significant increase in passenger traffic on the proposed extension, thereby warranting additional bus services. The survey report further records that, if the proposed curtailment were to be allowed, no inconvenience would be caused to the travelling public along the curtailed portion, as adequate transport facilities are available for them. However, the Tribunal failed to properly consider these factors while setting aside the S.T.C.’s order dated 17.05.2011.

¶20

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 contends that the impugned order has been passed in the public interest, as the S.T.C. failed to adequately assess the hardship likely to be faced by residents along the curtailed stretch. It is submitted that there was no substantive evidence before the S.T.C. to establish that adequate bus services were available on the curtailed portion or that there was increased passenger demand on the proposed extension.

¶21

DEVINDER YADAV 2025.10.29 09:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶22

CWP-23542-2012

¶23

¶24

The Court has heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and carefully examined the record.

¶25

The survey report, which is undisputed and annexed as Annexure P-1 to the present writ petition, forms the foundational basis for

¶26

the S.T.C.’s order. The relevant extract thereof is reproduced hereunder:-

¶27

11. General impression regarding adequacy or otherwise of services	During survey it has been observed that due to all round development in the State over the years, there is substantial growth in the rush of passengers on the proposed extension thereby warranting the addition of more bus services.
	Moreover, in case the proposed curtailment is allowed, it would not cause any inconvenience to the travelling public on the curtailment portion as sufficient bus service is available for them.

¶28

A perusal of the order dated 17.05.2011 passed by the S.T.C. reveals that it was based on the survey report and supported by cogent reasoning. In contrast, the Tribunal interfered with the said order without substantial basis. As no evidence has been placed on record to discredit the survey report, the impugned order warrants interference.

¶29

It is fairly conceded by learned counsel for the respondent No.3 that where the total route length does not exceed 24 km, curtailment up to 60% of the original route can be permitted by appropriate modification of the route permit.

¶30

In summa, this Court holds that the impugned order dated 04.10.2012 passed by the respondent No. 1 rests on mere presumptions, whereas the order dated 17.05.2011 passed by the S.T.C. is founded on a duly conducted survey possessing evidentiary value. Accordingly, the

¶31

DEVINDER YADAV 2025.10.29 09:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶32

¶33

CWP-23542-2012

¶34

present writ petition is allowed . The impugned order passed by the respondent No. 1 is hereby set aside, and the order issued by the S.T.C. is upheld.

¶35

(KULDEEP TIWARI) October 27, 2025 JUDGE devinder Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No

¶36

DEVINDER YADAV 2025.10.29 09:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

Ashok Kumar v. S T a T Pb & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar v. S T a T Pb & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Central Tool Room Vs Po It Punjab Chd.

Palo Vs State of Punjab and Others

Prem Chand Vs State of Punjab and Others

Harvinder Singh Vs Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dera Bassi and Others

Ashok Kumar and Anr. Vs Appellate Tribunal-Cum-District Magistrate Sangrur and Anr.

Jaspreet Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others