CWP No. 1714 of 2011 25.7.2011 Present: Mr. Surinder Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ram Murti Bishta, Dy. A.G for respondents. Undisputedly, petitioner applied for two route permits before R.T.A Dharamshala. His request in the form of application was rejected by passing a following cryptic and non-speaking order “Considered, not allowed”. Aggrieved thereof, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, which stands dismissed in terms of impugned order dated 6.1.2011. It stands decided that petitioner’s application filed before RTA Dharamshala was misconceived in as much as major portion of the route fell within the territorial jurisdiction of RTA, Mandi and Shimla and as much application would have filed before them. In this view of the matter, as prayed by the petitioner, it is always open to the petitioner to take appropriate steps for moving an application before the appropriate/concerned RTA in accordance with law. Needless to add, initial rejection of the application filed by the petitioner before RTA, Dharmshala shall not come in the way of the decision which may be taken by the concerned RTA having jurisdiction to decide the application, if any, filed by the petitioner. While taking such decision, provisions of Section 71 of the Motor Vehicle Act , 1988 shall be considered. Petitioner submits that he shall take steps within a period of three weeks from today. It is expected of the authority to decide the petitioners case within a reasonable period and preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of such application. With the aforesaid observation, present petition is disposed of. Copy dasti. July 25, 2011. (Sanjay Karol), (priti) Judge.