JUDGMENT Ashutosh Mohunta, J. - This is a petition for quashing order dated October 29, 1998 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab, (for short, the Tribunal) vide which respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were granted one regular stage carriage permit each for plying three return trips daily on the Nabha- Patiala-Sheikhopura route. 2. The facts of the case are that vide notice dated 22.5.1994, the State Transport Commissioner invited applications for grant of two stage carriage permits for plying six return trips daily on Nabha-Patiala via Ramgarh, Kalwanu, Thuhi, Agaeta, Diwangarh, Banera, Sheknopura, Sangrur road. The notice was published in the Motor Transport Gazette Weekly. Thirteen transporters filed applications in pursuance of the notice. The same were published for inviting objections in accordance with Rule 64 of the Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. Petitioner - Repsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala objected to the grant of permits on the route in question by asserting that the same falls on its monopoly route. 3. After considering the applications and the objections, the State Transport Commissioner vide order dated February 13, 1997 rejected the applications for the grant of stage carriage permit on the ground that the proposed route falls on the monopoly route of P.R.T.C., Patiala, the route being Patiala-Bathinda via Sunam, Mansa and as per the orders of the High Court, the P.R.T.C. has the exclusive right to operate on the said route. 4. Respondents No. 3 and 4 filed separate appeals before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, who accepted the appeals and ordered the grant of one regular stage carriage permit to each of them vide order dated October 29, 1998. 5. The petitioner has challenged order dated 29.10.1998 on the ground of non-application of mind and violation of the direction given by the High Court. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Shri H.S. Sawhney, Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 stated that his client is not plying the bus on the route in question and, therefore, the writ petition may be disposed of as infructous in so far as he is concerned. 7. Shri Jagdish Marwaha, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the grant of stage carriage permit on the aforesaid route is violative of the transport scheme dated August 9, 1990 and order dated April 21, 1994 passed by this Court in C.W.P. No. 14759 of 1993. 7. Shri Jagdish Marwaha, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the grant of stage carriage permit on the aforesaid route is violative of the transport scheme dated August 9, 1990 and order dated April 21, 1994 passed by this Court in C.W.P. No. 14759 of 1993. He further argued that the proposed route falls on the monopoly route of P.R.T.C., Patiala, i.e., Patiala-Bathinda via Sunam, Mansa, and as such, the private respondents cannot be allowed to ply buses on this route. Still further, he argued that the aforesaid route is more than 15 kilometers in length and as per clause (4) of the notification dated October 21, 1997, no private operator can we allowed to operate for a distance of more than 15 kilometres on the monopoly route. Another submission of the learned counsel is that the observation made by the Tribunal that the petitioner had not opposed the grant of stage carriage permits in favour of the private respondents is factually incorrect because it had, in fact, raised objection and was heard by the State Transport Commissioner. 8. In our opinion, the arguments of Shri Marwaha merit acceptance. Clause 4 of notification dated 21.10.1997, on which reliance has been placed by Shri Marwaha reads as under : "(4). All future operations on monopoly routes shall be operated by the State Transport undertakings : Provided that a private operator may be allowed to operate on a portion of twenty per cent of the monopoly route or upto the distance of fifteen kilometres of the said route, whichever is less, where it is necessary or is in public interest to do so" 9. A perusal of the scheme Annexure P3 clearly reveals that the proposed route falls on the monopoly route of the P.R.T.C. A list of the monopoly routes has been appended as Annexure A to the scheme. Thus, the only question for determination is whether the length of the proposed route is more than 15 kilometres or not. 10. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Patiala, has filed his written statement, wherein it has been stated that the Patiala-Nabha via Sheikhopura route has 17 kilometres on the monopoly route, which is violative or the transport scheme. As per the policy, it has been published and notified that a private operator can only be allowed to operate 15 kilometers on the monopoly route. As per the policy, it has been published and notified that a private operator can only be allowed to operate 15 kilometers on the monopoly route. Rough site plans have been annexed as Annexures P4 and P5, a perusal of which shows that the route in question is 16 kilometres. Thus, order dated October 29, 1998 (Annexure P2) passed by the Tribunal is wholly illegal and the same deserves to be quashed. 11. Apart from the above, the Tribunal has wrongly recorded a finding that the petitioner has not opposed the grant of permit on the said route and it did not prefer any objection with regard to the grant of permit. A perusal of Annexure P1, i.,e., order dated February 13, 1996 of the State Transport Commissioner shows that the representative of the P.R.T.C. had appeared and objected to the grant of the aforesaid permit. 12. For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is allowed. Order Annexure P2 dated October 29, 1998 passed by the Tribunal is quashed. It is ordered that respondent No. 3 shall not ply his bus on the Nabha-Patiala- Sheikhupura route. Petition allowed.