1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7222/2010 Shimbhooram Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 2.8.2010 HON'BLE MR. GOVIND MATHUR, J. Mr. B.L. Maheshwari, for the petitioner. By this petition for writ, a challenge is given to the order dated 19.7.2010 passed by the Divisional Transport Authority, Ajmer. The order impugned is appealable under Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act of 1988' hereinafter) and therefore, I am not inclined to exercise the discretion vested with this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this Court in the similar circumstances in the case of Ram Kumar Vs. RTA (AIR 1993 Raj. Page 30) has not only entertained the petition for writ but also held that the availability of alternative remedy does not bar the writ jurisdiction. 2 In the case aforesaid, a composite order was passed relating to change in number of trips and also timing of the buses, in such circumstance, this Court held that the order effects substantial right of the parties and therefore, the petitioner rightly approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the instant matter the order impugned is purely for changing time table. Be that as it may, it is well settled that availability of alternative remedy does not bar the writ jurisdiction of this Court and in suitable cases the Court can entertain a petition for writ despite availability of alternative remedy. However, no circumstance is available in the case in hand demanding deviation from the principle that before approaching this Court first, the party should exhaust other remedies available, thus, this petition for writ is dismissed. The petitioner may avail alternative remedy as prescribed under the Act of 1988. (GOVIND MATHUR)J. RM/