IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 149 M/s Syalkot Motors Regd. The State of Punjab CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON'BLE M Present : Mr. Raj Kaushik Mr. R. S. Pandher DEEPAK SIBAL, J 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at this stage, he would be satisfied if the present writ petition is disposed of wit The State Transport Commissioner, notice dated 17.09.2025 2. Learned State counsel, who appears on advance notice, has no objection if the above prayer is accepted. 3. Accordingly, at this stage, without commenting on the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction on the legal notice petitioner, by passing a speaking order and after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, preferably within order. 4. Needless to add that the decision so taken be communicated to petitioner and if the decision is not to th liberty to challenge the same, in accordance with law. 23.03.2026 Jyoti Thakur Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Syalkot Motors Regd. Versus Punjab and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Mr. Raj Kaushik, Advocate, for the petitioner R. S. Pandher, Addl. A. G., Punjab. * * * * DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at this stage, he would be satisfied if the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to State Transport Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh 2025 (Annexure P-7) submitted on behalf of Learned State counsel, who appears on advance notice, has no objection if the above prayer is accepted. Accordingly, at this stage, without commenting on the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No. legal notice dated 17.09.2025 (Annexure P , by passing a speaking order and after affording opportunity of hearing to , preferably within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Needless to add that the decision so taken be communicated to and if the decision is not to the satisfaction of liberty to challenge the same, in accordance with law. (LAPITA Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No : Yes / No IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-7034-2026 Date of decision: 23.03.2026 .… Petitioner ..... Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL LAPITA BANERJI petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at this stage, he would be h a direction to respondent No.2 - Punjab, Chandigarh to take a decision on the legal on behalf of the petitioner. Learned State counsel, who appears on advance notice, has no objection Accordingly, at this stage, without commenting on the merits of the case, respondent No.2 to take a decision P-7) submitted on behalf of the , by passing a speaking order and after affording opportunity of hearing to from the date of receipt of a copy of this Needless to add that the decision so taken be communicated to the e satisfaction of the petitioner, it would be at (DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE JYOTI THAKUR 2026.03.25 07:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document