Smt. Radha Devi vs State of Raj. and Others

Prakash Tatia, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

The petitioner has challenged five different orders passed by Regional Transport Authority, Chittorgarh in favour of 5 different persons who have been impleaded as respondents in this writ petition on various grounds.

Learned Counsel for the respondents raised several preliminary objections and one of which is that the same authority granted same nature of permits in favour of the respondents on earlier occasion, then also, those orders were challenged by the petitioner by preferring revision petitions and those revision petitions were dismissed on merits. Presently, the similar orders have been challenged by the petitioner which are of the same nature as of the order passed on earlier occasion but not by filing revision petition but by preferring writ petition and according to learned Counsel for the respondents, this fact has been suppressed by the petitioner and in view of the above reason and because of availability of alternate remedy, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed without entering into the merits of the case. In addition to the above, learned Counsel for the respondents pointed out that the petitioner has submitted affidavit in support of writ petition which is no affidavit in the eye of law as it is an affidavit by one Shyam Lal Ojha stating that he is power of attorney of the petitioner Radha Devi whereas the same affidavit has been verified not by Shyam Lal Ojha but has been verified by the petitioner.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner in reply to the preliminary objections vehemently submitted that the order dated 26.2.2010 is wholly without jurisdiction as it has been passed beyond the scope of the Inter State agreement dated 20.7.2007. It is also submitted that alternate remedy is no bar and inspite of the alternate remedy, the Court can entertain the writ petition. It is also submitted that no repeat temporary permits can be granted. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also invited my attention to the notice dated 9.2.2010 as well as order dated 26.2.2010 to show that the authority has committed error of law while issuing the permit in favour of the respondents.

I considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and perused the facts of the case.

The petitioner in his writ petition has not disclosed that the grant of permit on earlier occasion to the respondents has been challenged by the petitioner by preferring revision petitions and those revision petitions have been dismissed on merits. The petitioner also failed to explain the reason for availing the remedy on earlier occasion and not availing the same remedy this time and preferring writ petition to challenge these orders.

It is true and settled law that alternate remedy is no absolute bar and it is Court''s self restraint to not to entertain writ petition if alternate remedy is available to the petitioner. The facts in this case clearly reveals that the petitioner after expiry of the period of limitation for challenging the orders impugned, has preferred this writ petition and earlier the petitioner himself voluntarily opted for relief from the revisional authority and it is not a case where some exceptional circumstances are there so as to entertain this writ petition. Furthermore, there is no explanation even during the course of arguments that how five different orders could be challenged in one writ petition.

In view of the above reasons, this writ petition is hereby dismissed on preliminary objections.