1 25 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8982/2009. Narendra Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order :: 16th September 2009. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. B.L. Maheshwari, for the petitioner. ... BY THE COURT: Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is not persuaded to consider interference in the writ jurisdiction in this matter. The petitioner seeks to question the order dated 07.09.2009 (Annex.P/2) as passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal ('STAT') in the stay application as moved in Appeal No.129/2009. The STAT has proceeded to consider the challenge to the order dated 18.05.2009 passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner ('RTA') and while making the observations that on the given day, about 800 applications were decided and raising doubts on the possibility of hearing such number of applications on a single day, but without comments on the merits or demerits, has found a prima facie case in favour of the appellant; and until the next date, has restrained the RTA concerned from issuing permits pursuant to the impugned order dated 18.05.2009. 2 The stay order is sought to be questioned in this writ petition essentially with the submissions that number of applications may not be decisive of the issue because if multiple applications are made in relation to a particular route, the same are considered and decided together and in the present case, the detailed consideration on the basis of the report of the Secretary concerned is explicit from the order dated 18.05.2009 (Annex. P/1). It is further submitted that for grant of any interim order, the essential ingredients of existence of prima facie case, irreparable injury, and balance of convenience have not even been considered by the learned STAT and, therefore, the order impugned cannot be sustained. The submissions do not make out a case for interference in the writ jurisdiction. As to whether the applications have been considered in accordance with law and as to whether the appellant is able to make out a case for interference in the order as passed by the RTA would ultimately be a matter for consideration in the appeal pending before the STAT but the observations as made by the learned STAT cannot be said to be absolutely arbitrary and whimsical or totally irrational. In the matter of grant of interim relief, the STAT cannot be faulted at if during the pendency of the appeal, it has considered proper that permits be not issued under the order impugned without much discussion on the merits of the case. True it is that the STAT has not spelt out the considerations on the aspects of 3 irreparable injury and balance of convenience but then, on the facts and the grounds of challenge, if the STAT has found it proper that the permits be not issued until the next date in the balance of equities, the order cannot be considered to be wholly without jurisdiction nor could be said to be leading to failure of justice so as to warrant interference in the writ jurisdiction. The writ petition stands rejected. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. //Mohan//