IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.144 of 2011-A. Decided on: October 20,2011. M/s Manoj Transport Company …….Petitioner. Versus Secretary (Transport) to the Government of H.P. and others …….Respondents. __________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge Whether approved for reporting? No. 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. To quash the proceeding of meeting dated 18-11-2010 of RTA Dharamshala (Annexure P-11). IV. Annexure P-7 dated 23-10-2009, may very kindly be ordered to be quashed.” 2. The petitioner had earlier also approached this Court by way of filing a writ petition being CWP No.5608 of 2010, which was decided on 2 9.9.2010 and the following order was passed by a Division Bench of this Court: “This petition has been filed with the following prayers. “1. Directing the respondents to release the route permits in favour of the petitioner for the following routes:- (i) Dhangu to Kangra 02 RT permit valid upto 20.10.2000. (ii) Kangra to Terrace 01 RT, permit valid upto 27.1.2003. (iii) Jawali to Jassur 02 RT, Jassur to Dini Larth 01 RT Valid upto 1.12.1999. II. Directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner Annexure P-2 & P-10 within a time bound period and take appropriate steps in view of Annexures P-8 & P- 9 and release the route permits in favour of the petitioner after their renewal, in accordance with the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (as amended upto date) and rules framed thereunder.” 2. It is seen that the petitioner has submitted his grievance before the RTA, Dharamsala by representation Annexure P-10. 3. There will be a direction to the RTA, Dharamsala to consider the representation of the petitioner and take appropriate action thereon in accordance with law within two months on the production of copy of this judgment alongwith the copy of the writ petition. It is made clear that while taking the decision, as above, precedents in the matter, including Annexures P-8 and P-9, will be taken note of.” 3. After the passing of the aforesaid judgment, the matter was considered by the Chairman, RTA and 3 vide Annexure P-12, the case of the petitioner was rejected observing that his case was different from the cases mentioned in Annexures P-8 and P-9. In the reply filed by the respondents, they 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.