IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.117 of 2011-A. Decided on: October 20,2011. M/s Jubilee Highways Transport Pvt. Ltd. …….Petitioner. Versus State 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. Portion of Annexure P-11, which deals with the case of the petitioner, may kindly be ordered to be quashed and further directions be issued to the respondents to release/renew the route permits as prayed for in relief number 1, by considering the case of the petitioner, on the same lines as has been done in the case of other similarly situated transporters.” 2. The petitioner had earlier also approached this Court by way of filing a writ petition being CWP No.3923 of 2010, which was decided on 13.7.2010 and the following order was passed by a Division Bench of this Court: 2 “2. It is seen that the petitioners have submitted their grievance before the RTA, Dharamsala by representations (Annexure P-5 in CWP No. 3918 of 2010 and Annexure P-6 in CWP Nos. 3916 and 3923 of 2010) in each case. 3. There will be a direction to the RTA, Dharamsala to consider those representations 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 respective writ petitions. It is made clear that while taking the decision, as above, precedent in the matter, including Annexure P-7, will be taken note of.” 3. After the passing of the aforesaid judgment, the matter was considered by the Chairman RTA and vide Annexure P-11, the case of the petitioner was rejected. 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, 3 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.