1 S. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4049/2007 PURKHA RAM V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & OTHERS. DATE OF ORDER ::: 01/04/2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI Mr. B.L.Maheshwari, for Petitioner (s). Mr. S. N. Tiwari, Dy. G.A. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 15.12.2006 for refusing to grant permit from Vijay Nagar to Gharsana and no other relief is pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. While the notice of the writ petition was issued by this Court on 11.7.2007, an order was passed, wherein it was noted that STAT is not functional and, thereby, necessary interim protection is to be given to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in the present writ petition is quite narrow, inasmuch as if, according to the respondents, Vijaynagar – Gharsana route does not exist, then while the petitioner is deprived from the necessary relief by not granting permit of the aforesaid route, necessary action should be taken against those who were granted permits for Vijay Nagar – Gharsana route, 2 inasmuch as action of the respondents otherwise remains discriminatory in nature. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that necessary notice has already given to those who were earlier given permit for Vijaynagar – Gharsana route and the matter is pending consideration before the competent authority. The competent authority would try to complete the proceedings within the shortest possible time. Considering the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, issue needs consideration in the present writ petition is only as to whether the petitioner could have been denied permit on Vijay Nagar – Gharsana route and if it is denied on reasons then can such route be permitted for its operation by others, looking to the fact that Vijay Nagar – Gharsana route has been deleted and is not available, it becomes clear that the petitioner cannot be granted permit of such a route. Now, the question comes as to whether others who were granted permit for the aforesaid route can be continued. Since the learned counsel for the respondents has already stated that necessary action has already been initiated and would be completed 3 within shortest possible time, no further direction seems to be required from this Court, more so when the persons who were granted permit are not before this Court. It goes without saying that the respondents cannot make discrimination in their action and in view of the above, if the permit of Vijay Nagar – Gharsana route could not have been allowed to the petitioner, then necessary consequence is that the said route could not be opened for others also. Since the respondents have already initiated action against the persons-concerned who were granted permit of Vijay Nagar – Gharsana route, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to complete the exercise within shortest possible time, so that the issue of discrimination so raised by the petitioner may come to an end. It is expected that the respondents will complete the action within shortest possible as otherwise stated by the learned counsel for the respondents. For that purposes, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that they will complete their action within a period of two months. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if action is taken against others also, then petitioner will have 4 no grievance. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with the observations made above. (M. N. BHANDARI), J. scd