Indorailbus Travel Pvt Ltd v. State Of Punjab And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CWP-28939-2024 Date of Decision : May 27, 2025 INDORAILBUS TRAVEL PVT. LTD.

-PETITIONER V/S STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI

Present:

Mr. Rakshith Srivastava, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Teevar Sharma, A.A.G, Punjab.

Ms. Isha Goyal, Advocate and Mr. R.P. Saini, Advocate for the respondent No.4.

*** KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL) 1.

The petitioner-Company, which is engaged in the business of providing online travel solutions for bus travel industry, has approached this Court for issuance of directions upon the official respondents to take appropriate action against the respondent No.4 for causing hindrance in the operation of its business, and, also to ensure that, the respondent No.4 does not cause any hindrance in the plying of its buses. 2.

Upon notice, a short reply dated 17.05.2025, on affidavit of Mr. Rishabh Bhola, IPS, Assistant Commissioner of Police, North, Amritsar, was filed before this Court on behalf of the respondents No.1 and 2. 3.

What emerges from perusal of the short reply is that, the representation(s) made by the petitioner has already been enquired into and specific directions have been issued to the S.H.O., P.S. Civil Lines, Amritsar, to keep a watch on the ground situation, to ensure maintenance of law and order, and, to ensure that no breach of peace takes place. DEVINDER YADAV 2025.05.29 09:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

CWP-28939-2024 4.

Although it has been voiced in the short reply that, the petitioner has settled to ply only six buses daily, however, such disclosure is not substantiated by any evidence and the petitioner's counsel has also refuted the same.

5.

The number of buses, which the petitioner is entitled to ply, depends on the route permit(s) and the requisite licence(s) issued by the Road Transport Authority(ies) concerned. Therefore, in case, there is any dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No.4 with regard to the above, the same can only be adjudicated by the Road Transport Authority(ies) concerned.

6.

At this stage, the learned counsel for the respondent No.4 submits that, the respondent No.4 does not have any intent to, by adopting any illegal means, cause any hindrance in plying of buses by the petitioner. She further submits that, in case, the respondent No.4 has any grievance or dispute with regard to plying of buses by the petitioner, they will approach the Road Transport Authority(ies) concerned.

7.

In view of the above, since police has already taken adequate security measures to ensure that, no untoward incident takes place owing to dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No.4, therefore, at this stage, no direction is required to be passed. However, the S.H.O. concerned is directed to keep a watch on the ground situation and ensure that, no untoward incident takes place in future, on account of dispute (supra). 8.

Disposed of accordingly.

(KULDEEP TIWARI) May 27, 2025 JUDGE devinder Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether Reportable :

Yes/No DEVINDER YADAV 2025.05.29 09:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment