CWP No. 21646 of 2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (114) CWP No. 21646 of 2026 Date of Decision: 17.07.2026 Gurmeet Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and Others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Ms. Sheetal Rana, Advocate for the petitioner. **** KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL) 1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the orders dated 13.10.2011, 07.05.2013 and 04.12.2015 (Annexures P-8 to P-10) passed by the Punjab Transport Authorities, whereby the stage carriage route from Dera Bassi to Jeoli (Punjab) was illegally diverted to Dera Bassi to Bhagsi via Barwala Adda and Bhareli (Haryana) in violation of Sections 80(3) and 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, without following the mandatory legal procedure. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, a duly authorized three-wheeler/E-rickshaw operator in Barwala Town, is aggrieved by the illegal action of the Punjab Transport Authorities (Respondents No.2 to 4), who have allowed private mini buses to operate on the route passing through Barwala Adda and Bhareli (Haryana) since 2011 by diverting the original notified route without following the mandatory provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, including the required counter- signature and reciprocal agreement. The said route diversion was never legally recognized in the subsequent notification dated 11.02.2021 issued by the Government of Punjab. It is further submitted that respondents No.8 to 10 are impleaded as necessary parties as they are beneficiaries of the RITIKA 2026.07.20 11:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 21646 of 2026 -2- impugned permits. Learned counsel submits that the unauthorized operation has adversely affected the livelihood of local operators. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 13.10.2011, 07.05.2013 and 04.12.2015 (Annexures P-8 to P-10) deserve to be quashed and set aside. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record with his able assistance. 4. The impugned orders sought to be challenged were passed in the years 2011, 2013 and 2015, whereas the present petition has been instituted only in the year 2026. The plea that certified copies were obtained subsequently under the RTI Act does not satisfactorily explain the inordinate delay, nor revive a stale cause of action; and the mere continuation or renewal of permits does not furnish a fresh cause of action. 5. Furthermore, the petitioner, being an e-rickshaw operator claiming prejudice on account of alleged competition, has failed to demonstrate infringement of any enforceable legal or statutory right warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition also involves disputed factual issues regarding route variation and inter State operation, which cannot be gone into by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction. 6. As such, no case for exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction is made out. Accordingly, the present writ petition is hereby dismissed. 7. Civil Miscellaneous application pending, if any, is also disposed of. (KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE July 17, 2026 Ritika Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No RITIKA 2026.07.20 11:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh