Judgment Virender Singh, J. 1. The petitioner claims to be a private bus operator. In the instant writ petition, he is seeking quashing of notice No. 1656/RTA/F dated 7.6.2005 (Annexure P/3), notice No. 26665/SC/RTA/F dated 22.7.2005 (Annexure P/5 and notice (Annexure P/9) respectively published in Motor Transport Gazette (Weekly). 2. The grouse of the petitioner is that he could not apply for regular stage carriage permit on Abohar-Amritsar route and Bathinda-Amritsar route for the reason that the respondents did not adopt the proper procedure for inviting the applications for allotting those permits. The petitioner further asserts that had the official respondents given wide publicity for inviting applications for the aforesaid permit, the petitioner would have come to know of that and had applied for the same. But the same is not done. The scheme was notified in Motor Transport Gazette (Weekly) Annexure P/3 dated 7.6.2005 and then again in the same gazette on 22.7.2005 vide Annexure P/4 only and the petitioner being the individual private operator could not possibly come to know of the aforesaid notice. Resultantly, he has been deprived of his valuable right. Therefore, he prays for quashing of the aforesaid notices. 3. We have heard Mr. L.R. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case. 4. Mr. Sharma while reiterating the case of the petitioner vehemently contends that there is violation of Rule 128(2) of Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short the Rules) as the respondents have not supplied the information to all concerned through wide publication and has confined it to Motor Transport Gazette (Weekly) only. This, according to Mr. Sharma, amounts to depriving the individual private operators, one like the present petitioner of their valuable right and as such the action of the respondents is violative of Articles 14, 16 and 19(1)(G) of the Constitution. Mr. Sharma then contends that the action of the respondents smacks of arbitrariness as an attempt has been made to help out big transporters in one way or the other. Therefore, the aforesaid notices An-nexures P/3, P/4, P/5 and final notice (Annexure P/9) vide which the meeting of the State Transport Commissioner (S.T.C.) for allotment of the permits is fixed are liable to be quashed. In support of his contentions, Mr. Sharma has relied upon a judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court rendered in Mithlesh Garg etc. Therefore, the aforesaid notices An-nexures P/3, P/4, P/5 and final notice (Annexure P/9) vide which the meeting of the State Transport Commissioner (S.T.C.) for allotment of the permits is fixed are liable to be quashed. In support of his contentions, Mr. Sharma has relied upon a judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court rendered in Mithlesh Garg etc. v. Union of India and Ors. etc., (stress on para No. 10). 5. After giving our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by Mr. Sharma, we are not inclined to agree with him. 6. The Motor Transport Gazette (Weekly) dated 7.6.2005, (Annexure P/3) reflects that applications for grant of regular stage carriage permits for Abohar-Amritsar and Bathinda-Amritsar were invited from urban as well as rural areas. The Motor Transport Gazette (Weekly) dated 22.7.2005, (Annexure P/4), indicates that in response to the earlier notice (Annexure P/3), as many as 65 persons of different places have applied for regular stage carriage permit in respect of a particular route i.e. Abohar-Amritsar via different stations. Similarly Annexure P/5 of the same date also indicates that as many as 60 transporters of different places have applied for another route i.e. Bathinda-Amritsar via different stations. The perusal of the aforesaid documents indicates that the applicants were in the shape of Transport Society and individuals. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner could not come to know of the notice Annexure P/3 published in Motor Transport Gazette (Weekly). In our considered view, inviting the applications through Motor Transport Gazette (Weekly) tantamounts to wide publication and simply that the respondents had not invited the applications through widely circulated newspapers would not be a ground in itself to say that the notice (Annexure P/3) is bad. In our view there is no violation of Rule 128(2) of the Rules in any manner. 7. The judgment in Mithlesh Gargs case (supra) on which the learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied is not applicable to the facts of the present case as in the aforesaid case the petitioners therein had challenged liberalized policy for grant of permits under the Motor Vehicles Act and their petition was dismissed by the Apex Court. In the case in hand, the controversy is altogether different. 8. Resultantly, finding no merit in the instant writ petition, the same is hereby dismissed in limine itself.