IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.665 of 2011. Decided on: October 20,2011. M/s Jogindera Transport Bus Service …….Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others …….Respondents. __________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr.Neel Kamal Sood, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Justice V.K. Ahuja,J.(oral): The writ petition has been filed mainly with the following prayers: “II. Directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for exempting of taxes, such as special road tax/token tax for the period for which the petitioner did not ply his bus. III. Directing the respondents to supply certified copy of the final order passed in favour or against the transporters and also supply the proceedings of the meeting, in which the decision is taken for grant/release/renewal of route permits or decision is taken for scheduling or rescheduling of the timetable of the buses on receipt of usual charges.” 2. The petitioner had earlier also approached this Court by way of filing a writ petition 2 being CWP No.7918 of 2010, which was decided on 14.12.2010 and the following order was passed by a Division Bench of this Court: “The writ petition is filed with the following prayers: “I. Directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for release of route permit known as Palampur Shimla via Jogindernagar-Mandi-Jukhala (1S.T), which was granted vide Annexure P-1 for bus No.HP-29-1187. II. Directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for exempting of taxes such as special road tax/token tax for the period, for which the petitioner did not ply his bus. III. Directing the respondents to grant route permit in favour of the petitioner, for which he had applied for the route known as Shimla- Palampur via Jukhala-Mandi-Jogindernagar (1 S.T.).” 2. It is the third respondent, who has to take action in the matter. We are informed that despite several directions by the Government, no action so far has been taken by the Regional Transport Authority. There will be a direction to the third respondent, Regional Transport Authority to place the case of the petitioner in the next meeting of the RTA and take a decision in the matter in the said meeting itself. We make it clear that all other contentions except the extent required above are left open.” 3. After the passing of the aforesaid judgment, the matter was considered by the Chairman RTA and vide Annexure P-16, the case of the petitioner was rejected. In the reply filed by the respondents, they 3 have taken the plea that there is a provision under Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act vide which an appeal could have been preferred by the petitioner in case he is aggrieved by the order passed by the Transport Authority. No such appeal has been filed by the petitioner. Writ petition does not lie unless and until statutory remedies available to a party are availed of by it. 4. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner makes statement that he be permitted to file an appeal before the authority under Section 89 of the Act. The petition is disposed of as withdrawn, with liberty to the petitioner, as above. Time taken in pursuing the present writ petition shall be deducted at the time of computing the period of limitation by the Authority. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Dasti copy. October 20, 2011 (V.K. Ahuja), (tilak) Judge.