( 2026:HHC:10852 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1790 of 2018 Decided on: 8th April, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Residents of Bharanoo-Tharoch-Madhana-Manu Bhawa-Mundli-Poria-Ruslah-Pujarli …..Petitioner Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sparsh Bhushan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioners seek direction to the respondents for plying a bus from Tharoch to Delhi via Nerwa, Shillai and Paonta Sahib. 2. The case set up by the petitioners is that:- 2(i). The Regional Manager, Tara Devi Unit of the respondent-Himachal Road Transport Corporation (HRTC) on 13.05.2011, requested respondent No.1 for providing three buses alongwith crew for operating Tharoch-Delhi via 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 ( 2026:HHC:10852 ) Paonta Sahib bus service. The letter, inter alia, conveyed that route permit of Tharoch-Nerwa-Delhi had already been sanctioned on 24.09.2010. On 21.07.2012, the Regional Manager, HRTC Shimla issued an office order for plying Shimla-Chopal-Nerwa-Delhi via Paonta Sahib bus service. 2(ii). It appears that Haryana Roadways took an objection to the plying of aforesaid bus on the ground that Inter-State route permit had not been obtained by the respondent-HRTC. On 22.08.2012, the General Manager, Haryana Roadways addressed an office communication to the Regional Manager, HRTC, specifically conveying that HRTC did not have the required permit countersigned by the R.T.A. Yamuna Nagar for the above service, therefore, bus service for Tharoch-Nerwa-Delhi was to be suspended. 2(iii). On 28.12.2010 (Annexure P-5), respondent No.1 informed the Regional Manager, HRTC, Taradevi-Shimla about the decision to operate Tharoch-Nerwa-Delhi via Paonta Sahib bus service from Nerwa to Delhi via Shillai- Paonta Sahib instead of Tharoch. The office order further directed to apply for permit for plying Nerwa-Delhi bus instead of Tharoch-Delhi before introducing the bus service. 2(iv). Feeling aggrieved against the office order dated 28.12.2010, petitioners preferred CWP No.5434 of 2011, 3 ( 2026:HHC:10852 ) seeking quashing of the decision taken in the aforesaid office letter with further directions to the respondents to ply bus from Tharoch to Delhi via Nerwa-Shillai-Paonta Sahib. The writ petition was disposed of on 09.03.2017 as under:- “This petition is pending on the dockets of this Court for the last about 6 years. It is a moot question whether the grievance aired through the instant petition still survives. Without going into the said question, we dispose of the writ petition by directing the petitioners to file representation before respondent No.2 within a period of two weeks from today and the said respondent/competent Authority to examine the same and pass orders, of course, as per Rules occupying the field, within a period of three weeks thereafter. It is made clear that in case the decision goes against the petitioners, they are at liberty to resort to appropriate proceedings. Pending CMPs, if any, also stand disposed of.” 2(v). Pursuant to the liberty reserved to the petitioners to represent to the concerned quarters, the petitioners raised their grievances in form of Annexures P-8 & P-9 to the respondents. Respondent No.1 on 10.07.2017 (Annexure P-10) conveyed the approval of the competent authority to extend Nerwa-Paonta Sahib bus service upto Tharoch with immediate effect, though after completing all codal formalities. Petitioners’ grievance in this writ petition is that despite the approval accorded on 10.07.2017, the respondents did not extend Nerwa-Paonta Sahib bus 4 ( 2026:HHC:10852 ) service to Tharoch. The substantive relief prayed for by the petitioner reads as under:- “i. That an appropriate writ order or direction may very kindly be issued by directing the respondents to ply a bus from Tharoch to Delhi, via Nerwa, Shillai, Ponta Sahib for which the route permit already stood sanctioned by the Joint Commissioner (Transport) on 24.09.2010, by further getting it counter signed from RTA Yamuna Nagar as is evident from Annexure P-4, immediate without there being any further delay in the interest of law and justice.” 3. I have heard learned counsel on both sides and considered the case file. The hearing has been attended by Sh. Pankaj Singhal, Chief General Manager of the respondent-HRTC. 4. The respondent-Corporation in its reply, has taken a stand that it is not in a position to introduce a new bus service due to shortage of Buses, Conductors and Drivers etc.; It is operating the services under losses as its earnings and expenditure are not at par; The respondent- Corporation is already plying 126 bus services upto Delhi. These services are operating on Inter-State routes, requiring approvals from other State Governments, governed by Inter- State agreements. That due to resource constraints and other difficulties, it is not possible to fulfill the demand from every village to ply buses upto Delhi. Regarding bus services operational in the area concerned, the facts 5 ( 2026:HHC:10852 ) projected in the reply are that the respondent-Corporation is already providing facility to Nerwa with 44 buses, 46 Drivers and 44 Conductors. 59 bus services are stated to be operating in Nerwa area; In Tharoch area, 07 bus services are being operated. Concerning plying of Nerwa-Delhi bus service, respondents’ defense is that this bus was plied in the year 2012, but was stopped due to resource constraints and also due to the objection raised by Haryana Roadways as the route was not included in the Inter-State agreement. During the course of hearing today, written instructions were placed on record by the respondents to the effect that on petitioner’s representations (Annexures P-8 & P-9), the respondent-Corporation though issued orders on 10.07.2017 for extending the Nerwa-Paonta Sahib bus service upto Tharoch, but these orders could not be implemented due to report received from the Field Officers that Nerwa and Tharoch are on different lines; Bifurcation point to both the stations is Dawada, which is five kilometers from Nerwa and 18 kilometers from Tharoch. The public would have to travel 36 kilometers extra, if the bus service was diverted and made Nerwa- Tharoch-Paonta Sahib. Additionally, it was also pointed out 6 ( 2026:HHC:10852 ) that following 07 buses are providing transport connectivity to the general public of Tharoch area:- Sr. No. Name of Route Plied/Not plied Dep. Time from ori. Station Dep. Time from ter. Station Timings from Dawada Station Up Down 1 Nerwa-Bharmana Plied 12:00 PM 02:00 PM 12:30 PM 03:20 PM 2 Shimla-Kutangan (KBO) Private Plied 06:20 AM 08:00 AM 3 Solan-Madhana via Tharoch Plied 06:50 AM 07:30 AM 03:10 PM 09:10 AM 4 Shimla-Tharoch- Kutangan Not Plied 07:20 AM 07:30 AM 03:55 PM 08:55 AM 5 Nerwa-Pouria (available up to Mashrana i.e. 6 KMs. before Tha- roch) Plied 04:15 PM 07:00 AM 04:22 PM 08:50 AM 6 Nerwa-Sarach Not Plied 04:30 PM 06:30 AM 04:50 PM 09:20 AM 7 Rohru-Tharoch Plied 11:15 AM 07:00 AM 05:15 PM 08:12 AM Sh. Pankaj Singhal, Chief General Manager of the respondent-Corporation, has informed that the buses mentioned at Sr. Nos.4 & 6 of the above table are presently not being plied due to shortage of resources, however, the respondent-Corporation will ensure that these buses are regularly plied within one month from today, i.e. by 08.05.2026. It was also informed that the bus service at Sr. No.2 of above table is being plied by a private operator. The Officer has further informed that all the above-mentioned bus services cross Dawada and from there, the public has the option even for going to Nerwa or Paonta Sahib and onwards to Delhi. The instructions have further provided 7 ( 2026:HHC:10852 ) the details of bus services being operated via Dawada (bifurcation point) as under:- Sr. No. Name of Route Plied/ Not plied Dep. Time from ori. station Dep. Time from ter. station Timings from Dawada Station Up Down 1 Chopal-Jubbal Plied 06:30 AM 12:30 PM 08:30 AM 04:00 PM 2 Chopal-Paonta Plied 05:40 AM 12:30 PM 07:25 AM 06:45 PM 3 Nerwa-Auli Plied 04:30 PM 07:00 AM 04:45 PM 08:20 AM 4 Nerwa-Maneoti Plied 04:00 PM 06:30 AM 04:15 PM 08:45 AM 5 Nerwa-Paban Plied 04:00 PM 07:00 AM 04:15 PM 08:25 AM 6 Nerwa-Shalan Plied 04:10 PM 07:00 AM 04:25 PM 08:15 AM 7 Nerwa-Jhanog Plied 05:00 PM 07:30 AM 05:15 PM 08:30 AM 8 Chopal-Kanah Plied 08:30 AM 06:30 AM 10:50 AM 03:30 PM 9 Shimla-Mashot (being plied from Nerwa) Plied 01:10 PM 07:00 AM 01:25 PM 01:10 PM 10 Chopal- Dharchandna Plied 11:30 AM 07:00 AM 02:45 PM 10:20 AM 11 Chopal-Nahan Plied 06:45 AM 06:30 AM 09:00 AM 04:20 PM The reply filed by the respondents and the office instructions now placed on record make it evident that at present, the respondent-Corporation is not plying Nerwa- Paonta Sahib-Delhi bus. Petitioners’ prayer in this writ petition is to direct the respondents to extend the Nerwa- Paonta Sahib-Delhi Bus service upto Tharoch. Since this bus service is not operational on account of several operational problems including stated non-existence of Inter-State route permit, the relief as prayed for by the petitioners cannot be granted. Further, from the tabulations provided by the respondents (extracted above), it can be noticed that reasonable transport connectivity is available to the general public of Tharoch. The five bus 8 ( 2026:HHC:10852 ) services available to them as on date and two additional bus services, which would be available w.e.f. 08.05.2026 as stated by Sh. Pankaj Singhal, CGM of the respondent- Corporation, who is present in the Court, would cater to their transport requirement even for going to Delhi as all these bus services would cross Dawada. Otherwise also, the relief as prayed for by the petitioners may stricto sensu fall within the domain of policy matter. It may not be within the domain of the Court to consider as to whether a particular policy is ‘wise’ or a better public policy can be evolved. Hon’ble Apex Court in Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Limited and another Versus Union of India and others2 has cautioned that such matters must be left to the discretion of the executive and legislature. Paras relevant from the decision read as under:- “53. In a constitutional democracy, each branch of govern- ment-executive, legislative, and judiciary-has a defined role and operates within its designated boundaries. This separation of powers ensures that one branch does not encroach upon the functions of the others, preserving a system of checks and balances crucial to democratic governance. Within this framework, courts are primarily responsible for interpreting and upholding the law, while the executive and legislature hold the mandate to formulate and implement policy. This division is essential, as it aligns with the principle that policy-making, particularly in areas requiring specialized knowledge, foresight, and discretion, should 2 (2025) 1 SCC 695 9 ( 2026:HHC:10852 ) remain within the domain of the elected representatives and those with the requisite expertise. 54. Judicial restraint is rooted in the understanding that courts should respect the decisions made by the legislative and executive branches, provided these decisions are legally sound and constitutionally valid. By adhering to judicial restraint, courts avoid overstepping their constitutional role and thereby prevent potential conflicts with the executive and legislative branches. The principle of separation of powers supports the idea that each branch has a unique role, and mutual respect between these branches is essential for the proper functioning of government. The courts are to ensure that laws and policies do not infringe upon citizens' rights or exceed the authority granted by law. However, this role does not extend to evaluating whether a policy is "wise" or whether a better one could be devised, and rather this process is entrusted to the legislature and executive, which have the expertise to make these determinations. 55. The doctrine of judicial restraint, which is central to this discussion, emphasizes that courts should exercise caution and avoid involvement in policy decisions, as these are complex judgments that require a balancing of diverse and often competing interests. Policies are crafted based on thorough analysis of social, economic, and political factors, considerations beyond the court's purview. The court is tasked with ensuring that policies do not breach constitutional provisions or statutory limits; however, they should not replace policymakers' judgments with their own unless absolutely necessary. 56. Policy decisions often require the expertise of professionals and specialists in fields such as economics, public health, national security, and environmental science. These domains involve specialized knowledge that judges, as generalists in legal matters, may lack. For instance, in economic policy, the executive may decide on trade tariffs or subsidies based on extensive data and projections that aim to balance domestic industry support with global trade commitments. The courts, lacking the same level of economic expertise and without the authority to make trade-offs among competing policy objectives, is typically not equipped to second-guess these kinds of decisions. 57. While courts have the power of judicial review to ensure that executive actions and legislative enactments comply with the Constitution, this power is not absolute. Judicial review is meant to act as a safeguard against actions that overstep legal boundaries or infringe on fundamental rights, but it does not entail a comprehensive re-evaluation of the policy's wisdom. The 10 ( 2026:HHC:10852 ) judicial review of policy decisions is limited to assessing the legality of the decision-making process rather than the substantive merits of the policy itself. For example, if a government policy infringes on fundamental rights or discriminates against a particular group, the courts have a duty to strike down such policies. However, in the absence of constitutional or legal violations, the courts should respect the policy choices made by the executive or legislature. 58. The duty of the court in policy-related cases is primarily to determine whether the policy falls within the scope of the authority granted to the relevant body. If the policy decision is within the executive's legal authority and has been made following proper procedures, the courts should defer to the expertise and discretion of the policy-makers, even if the policy appears unwise or imprudent. This restraint ensures that the courts do not impose its own perspective on policy matters that are rightly the responsibility of other branches. 59. Economic and social policies often involve significant redistribution of resources, prioritization of interests, and balancing of public needs, which requires careful consideration by those with specialized knowledge and broad perspectives. In the realm of economic policy, for instance, questions regarding the allocation of subsidies, fiscal deficits, or budget allocations are best managed by the executive, which has access to economic data and is accountable to the public for its financial management. Judicial interference in such areas risks creating disruptions in the economic balance that policymakers are trying to achieve. 60. The courts should assume that policy-makers act in good faith unless there is clear evidence to the contrary. As long as the policy does not contravene the Constitution or violate statutory provisions, it is not the role of the courts to question the wisdom or fairness of such policy. 61. While judicial restraint is essential in respecting the boundaries of each branch of government, it does not mean that courts abdicate their responsibility to protect constitutional rights. The courts must still intervene if a policy infringes on fundamental rights, discriminates unfairly, or breaches statutory provisions. The role of the court in such instances is to protect individuals and groups from unlawful actions while maintaining the overall integrity of the policy-making process. This balance ensures that while courts do not interfere in matters of policy wisdom, they remain vigilant guardians of constitutional rights.” 11 ( 2026:HHC:10852 ) 5. In view of above, this writ petition to stand disposed of. The respondents to abide by their assurance for starting the bus services mentioned at Sr. Nos.4 & 6 of table No.1 (extracted above) by 08.05.2026. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua April 08, 2026 Judge Mukesh