IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 301 of 2010. Sriman Narayan Gupta, S/O Late Sri Anand Swaroop Gupta, R/O 79 Akhara Mohalla, Chakrata Road, Dehradun. … Petitioner. Vs. 1. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Transport Department Dehradun. 2. Transport Commissioner Uttarakhand Dehradun. 3. Regional Transport Authority Dehradun through its Secretary. …Respondents. Mr. Gopal Narain, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. K.P.Upadhyay, learned Additional C.S.C. for the respondents. Date March 11, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Stay Application No. 1373 of 2010) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the decision of RTA at item no. 14(3) of meeting dated 27-12-2008. The petitioner claims himself to be having permanent stage carriage permit for the route in question. The only grievance of the petitioner is that since the route in question has not been formulated as yet therefore the Regional Transport Authority could not have directed other persons to operate the buses on the said route by overlapping the entire route. The remedy of filing revision against the order passed by the Regional Transport Authority is available to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the alternative remedy is not an absolute bar when the order of the RTA is without jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied in para 23 of the case of Committee of Management and another Vs. Vice-Chancellor and others [(2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases, 630]. 2 I have perused the judgment. It has been held by the Apex Court that availability of an alternative remedy by itself may not be a ground for the High Court to refuse to exercise its jurisdiction. It may exercise its writ jurisdiction despite the fact that an alternative remedy is available, inter alia, in a case where the same would not be an efficacious one. When an order has been passed by an authority without jurisdiction or in violation of the principles of natural justice, the superior courts shall not refuse to exercise their jurisdiction although there exists an alternative remedy. The ratio of the judgment cannot be disputed. The facts of the case at hand are quite distinct. In the case before the Apex Court, the Chancellor of the University had gone to the extent of considering an intricate question of law involving interpretation of the Statute vis-à-vis the jurisdictional fact of an authority. The Apex Court has held that a statutory authority cannot consider the validity of a statute. In the memo of petition, the petitioner has nowhere alleged that the impugned order has been passed by the Regional Transport Authority in violation of the principles of natural justice and fair play. The petitioner has not alleged infringement of fundamental right in the petition. In the case at hand, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Regional Transport Authority without observing the mandatory requirement of Section 68(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act could not have granted permit to other persons. The legality of the impugned order passed by the R.T.A. can very well be examined in revision by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. Validity of statute has not been considered by the R.T.A., therefore, the case law cited by the petitioner is of no help. On the ground of alternate remedy of revision, the writ petition is dismissed. All pending applications stands disposed of. (B.S.Verma,J.) RCP 3