HIGH GOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BIIASPUR W.P.IQ No. 1900/20( PBTITIONBRS Nirmal Singh, S/o Gurubachan Singh, agcd about 29 ycars, R/o. Sector-2, Qtr. No. 29, S-3, Bhilai, District Durg (CG) Versus RBSPONDBNTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, throu^i Secretary, Department of Transport, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur 2. Regional Transport Aufhorily, Chhattisgarh, Raipur 3. Sccrctaiy/ R.T.O. Raipur 4. Mohd. Aslam, R/o TaMyapara, Durg ORAL ORDBR 31-3-2008 Dhirendra Mlshra, J. Shri B.K. Rawat, Advocate, for the petitioners. Shri Sushil Dubey, Govt Advocate, for fhe State. This petition is directed against the order dated 29-6- 2006 passed by the Re^onal Transport Authority (for brevity, the R.T.A.'} of Annexure P-4 whereby fhe respondent No. 4 has been granted regular stage carriage permit on the route Durg to Patewa where fhe petitioner is already holding permit, wiftiout hearing fhe petitioner. The petitioner had submitted his objection to the R.T.A. on 16-7-2004 and 16-2-2005 of annexures P-2 and P-3 respectivefy against issuance of permit to the respondent No. 4, however, the order impugned has been passed wifhout considering the objections and without aflfording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Retying upon the judgment in the matter of Whlrioool Corooyation -^v- Reidstrar of Trade Marks, Mumbal aad others1, it was argued that availability of the altemative remedy is not a constitutional bar to the High Court's jurisdiction but the same is a setf-imposed restriction and the altemative reinedy would not operate as a bar in the contingencies :-(i) where fhe ' (1998) 8 SCC 1 ^. ^lllMN^ writ petition seeks enforcement of any of t3ie fundamental rigtits; (ii) where there is violation of principles of aiatural justice; or (iii) where the order or the proceedings are wholly withoutjiirisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. From the perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the respondent No. 4, on the basis of temporary permit granted to him, was plying his vehicle in the said route for the last four months. The R.T.A. considering the above fact has granted regular stage carriage permit by fhe impugned order. The above order is appellable under Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act and revision is also provided under Section 90 of the said Act. In view of the statutory altematiye remedy of appeal/revision, avaUable to the petitioner, I am of flie opinion fhat the present is not a fit case where interfereiice is caUed for in exercise of wrlf jurisdiction uader Article 226/227 ofthe Constitution oflndia. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed re^irving fhe ri^it of fhe petitioner to avail fhe statutoiy remedies available to him under fhe Motor Vehicles Act Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge ?<