JUDGMENT Satish Kumar Mittal, J.:- This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petitions No. 725 and 730 of 2008, filed by Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala, a State transport undertaking, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, for quashing the order dated 11.8.2006 (Annexure P-3), passed by the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab, allowing the application of respondent No.3, a private transporter, for increasing the return trips from one to two in respect of its two stage carriage permits on Amritsar to Abohar via Harike-Zira-Faridkot-Muktsar and Malout route; and the order dated 25.4.2007 (Annexure P-4), passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh, dismissing the revision of the petitioner against the aforesaid order. 2. In the present case, on the application of respondent No.3 for increase of the return trips, a survey was conducted by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Ferozepur, and as per his report the single length of the route is 232 Kms., out of which 168 Kms., route falls on the National Highways, while the remaining 64 Kms., route falls on the State Highways. The surveying officer, after taking into consideration the availability of the vehicles on the said route, recommended the increase in return trips from one to two in the public interest. Thereafter, as per the rules, the contents of the application were got published in the news paper, inviting objections from the general public. In response to that, the petitioner Corporation-filed objections to the claimed increase of the return trips. 3. After considering all the objections and providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab, allowed the increase of return trips from one to two on Amritsar to Abohar via Harike-Zira-Faridkot-Malout route in respects of two permits of respondent No.3: 4. Feeling aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner Corporation filed revision before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh, which has also been dismissed on 25.4.2007. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner Corporation does not dispute the jurisdiction of the State Transport authorities to increase the return trip. He also could not point out any procedural illegality in the order. Feeling aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner Corporation filed revision before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh, which has also been dismissed on 25.4.2007. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner Corporation does not dispute the jurisdiction of the State Transport authorities to increase the return trip. He also could not point out any procedural illegality in the order. However, he submits that as per the scheme formulated by the State Government under the provisions of Section 99 read with Section 100 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which was notified vide notification dated 9.8.1990 and was subsequently modified vide notification dated 21.10.1997, the ratio for plying the vehicles on the National Highways by the State Transport Undertakings and the private operators has been fixed as 75:25 and the increase in the return trips in favour of respondent No.3 has effected the said ratio, as length of 168 Kms. of the route in question falls on the National Highways. Thus, the increase of return trips in favour of respondent No.3 has been made in violation of the approved transport scheme. 6. Secondly, learned counsel submits that by virtue of the impugned orders, the total daily mileage against each permit has gone up to 464 Kms., which is not feasible to be plied by one bus carrying permit with it passing through long stretch of road having numerous stoppages and stages involving much time. Therefore, the impugned increase in the trips was not in the interest of general public. 7. Thirdly, learned counsel has submitted that the Appellate Tribunal has wrongly come to the conclusion that the revision filed by the petitioner was barred by limitation. However, the revision has been decided on merits. It is the further case of the petitioner that by the increase in the two permits of respondent No.3, business of the petitioner Corporation is going to be effected and at present, on the route in question, bus services of 120 return trips are available, therefore, the impugned orders were not passed in the general interest of public, rather it is adversely effecting the ate Transport Undertaking. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the impugned orders, we do not find any reason to entertain these petitions and to interfere in the impugned orders. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the impugned orders, we do not find any reason to entertain these petitions and to interfere in the impugned orders. In our opinion, the application filed by respondent No.3 was duly considered by following the procedure prescribed in this regard and after taking into consideration all the objections, by providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner; the return trips has been increased by the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab, who was having the jurisdiction in this regard. Therefore, there is no jurisdictional error in the impugned order. We do not agree with the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the increase of return trips on the route in favour of respondent No.3 has disturbed the ratio of buses to be plied by the State Transport Undertakings and the private operators, on the National Highways, and the impugned orders have thus violated the approved Transport scheme. Clause 5 of the approved Transport scheme provides that “All future operations of routes on the National Highways falling within the State shall be undertaken by the State, Transport Undertakings and the private operators in the ratio of 70:30 which shall be determined on the basis of the passenger road transport needs, as so assessed by the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab from time to time.” Subsequently, the said ratio was modified as 75:25 vide notification dated 21.10.1997. Neither before the authorities below nor before this Court, the petitioner has placed any material to show that the said ratio of 75:25 has been disturbed, because the said ratio is to be maintained in plying of all the vehicles throughout the State and not on a particular route. Even there is no material that on a particular route, how many buses are being plied by the State Transport Undertaking and the private operators. Therefore, there is no material, on the basis of which a conclusion can be drawn that the ratio of 75:25 fixed by the scheme has been disturbed. 9. We also do not find any merit in the second and third contentions i.e. increase in the return trips has gone to make the total daily mileage of each permit on the route as 464 Kms., and that the Appellate Tribunal has wrongly held that the revision is barred by limitation. 9. We also do not find any merit in the second and third contentions i.e. increase in the return trips has gone to make the total daily mileage of each permit on the route as 464 Kms., and that the Appellate Tribunal has wrongly held that the revision is barred by limitation. It has been found that there is no limit on the mileage coverage by a vehicle in a day, therefore, on this ground, it cannot be said that the impugned orders are illegal. Regarding dismissing the revision on limitation is concerned, the revisional authority has decided the matter on merits, therefore, this contention has no merit. Since the authorities below have considered each and every aspect of the case and passed the impugned orders, we do not find any ground to interfere in the same. Dismissed. ------------------