1 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.297 OF 1998. The Maharashtra State Transport Kamgar Sangathana, Regional Office, at Aurangabad, through its Regional Secretary. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharahstra. 2. The Secretary, Department of Transport Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Bombay-32. 3. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation having its office at Maharashtra Vahatuk Bhavan, Bombay Central, Bombay-8. 4. The State Transport Authority Maharashtra State having its Office in Mittal Chambers, First floor, Nariman Point, Bombay-21. 5. Dilip Raghavaji Kapadia Raghavji Niwas, Dadi Sheth, lst Cross Line, Babulnath, Bombay-7. ... Respondents. ... Mr.D.R.Irale Patil, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.V.D.Rakh, Asstt.Govt. Pleader for the State. 2 Mr.S.S.Bora, advocate for the Respondent No.3. ... CORAM : B.R.GAVAI AND : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,JJ. Date : 29.06.2010. ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.V.Gangapurwala,J.) 1. By the present petition, the petitioner impugns the notification dated 5.4.1997, by virtue of which carriage permit to ply Maxi Cabs and Motor Cabs is being issued in favour of private parties. 2. Mr.Irale Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the grant of permits to ply Maxi Cabs and Motor Cabs in favour of private parties would jeopardise the rights of the members of the petitioner Union and the same would also be against the object of establishment of the MSRTC. 3. The petitioner has no where averred that because of grant of such permits, the members of the petitioner Union have been affected or any adverse action have been taken 3 against them. Vide the impugned notification right has been given to the private parties to run the Maxi Cabs and Motor Cabs due to the exigencies of the situation and the circumstances. The petitioner does not have any cause of action. The grant of such permit is the matter of policy and unless and until the said policy is found to be arbitrary, the Courts would not normally interfere in the said policy decision. In the present case also the petitioner could not point out any such act which can be said to be arbitrary. The petitioner has absolutely no cause of action and locus-standi to challenge the said notification. The petitioner is not in a position to demonstrate that because of such permits, it has adversely affected the rights of its members. 4. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule discharged. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) (B.R.GAVAI,J.) asp/office/wp29798 4