Ajit Pal v. Ranjit Singh Sidhu

COCP-1824-2016 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP-1824-2016 Date of Decision: November 27, 2018 Ajit Pal .....Petitioner

Versus

Ranjit Singh Sidhu and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR

Present:

Mr.Jagmeet Singh Moudgill, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.N.S.Diwana, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Mr.Rohit Kapoor, Advocate for respondent No.2. Ms.Sudeepti Sharma, Addl.AG, Punjab.

........

NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (ORAL) The contempt petition has been filed for non-compliance of the order dated 16.11.2015 vide which a direction was issued to respondent No.2 to decide the legal notice dated 12.02.2015. Reply was filed by respondent No.1 stating therein that the matter was examined, time table was framed and in pursuance of the same, the petitioner has been given the route from 'Mansa to Sardulgarh', which was duly approved by the office of the respondent. However in spite of the same, learned counsel for the petitioner is aggrieved. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the same pertains to only part of the route from 'Barnala to Sardulgarh', whereas he was entitled to for the entire route. Since the said route was under the jurisdiction of Regional Transport Officer, Sangrur, he was impleaded as MEENU 2018.11.28 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh party-respondent No.2. He has filed reply today in Court, which is taken on

COCP-1824-2016 -2record. It has been stated in the reply that the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab, who is exercising the powers of all the Regional Transport Authorities in the State has, vide his order dated 12.03.2018, Annexure R-1, ordered that the work of framing/approving the time tables of the routes shall be done only by four Regional Transport Authorities, namely, Patiala, Jalandhar, Ferozepur and Bathinda. Thus, respondent No.2 is not in a position to decide the case of the petitioner. In view of the above, this Court finds that the order dated 16.11.2015 passed by this Court has been fully complied with. The contempt is accordingly dismissed.

The rule issued against the respondents stands discharged. However, taking into account para 13 of the reply filed by respondent No.2, the petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh representation for the remaining route to the concerned Regional Transport Authority (for short,'the RTA') within 15 days from today and in case the said representation is filed within the stipulated period, the concerned RTA shall decide the same within four weeks from the date of receipt of the said application.

November 27, 2018 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) meenuss JUDGE 1.

Whether speaking/reasoned ?

Yes/No 2.

Whether reportable ?

Yes/No MEENU 2018.11.28 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh