^:,^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WntPeiHtion(C)NQ. .^75 of2007 Abdul Gani Memon S/o Adam Bhai, aged about 33 years R/o Nunera (Pali), District Korba (CG). VERSUS l.State of Chhattisgarh tfarough the Secretary, Department of Transport, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawau, Raipur (CG). 2-Regional Transport Authority, Raipiir, DKS Bhawan, Maiitralaya Raipur (CG). 3.The Secretary, Regional Transport Autfiority, BUaspur(CG). 4.Lakhvindrer Pal Singh S/o Late S. Surjeet Singh aged about 40 years, R/o Kusmunda District Korba(CG). (WRTT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTTTUHON OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotrii, J.) Present : Shri S.K. Bajpai, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sumesh Bajaj, Govt. Advocate fortfae State. ORALORDER tffl (Passed on this 19m of November, 2007) (1) By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 01.10.2007 (Annexure P/l), passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Bilaspur, whereby, the regular bus pemrit granted in favour ofthe petitioner from Pali to Korba and vice-versa, vide memo No. 3026/B/07, was cancelled. (2) There is a statutory appeal provided under the provisions of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to approach the State Transport Appellate Tribunal against the order passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Bilaspur. (3) The petitioner has bye-passed the statutory appeal provided under provisions oflaw and directly approached tliis court by way ofthis writ petition, seeking quashing ofthe order passed by the Regional Transport Aulhority, Bilaspur. (4) There is no extra-ordinary circuiiistances whieh necessitates interference by fhis Court directly under Article 226 ofthe Constitution oflndia. The petitioner has failed to take recourse to statutory appeal provided under the provisions ofThe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Sabu (5) Thus, this petition is not maintainable aiid is accordingly dismissed on tfae ground of availability of altemative statutory remedy under the provisions oflaw. No order asto costs. (6) However, tfae petitioner is at liberty to take recourse to altemative statutory remedy tiiat may be available to him uuder the provisions of law. ——-— -— Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge