DARSHAN SINGH S/O. SRI RATAN SINGH, R/O KHADRI MOHALLA, DEHRADUN, DISTRICT DEHRADUN Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND THROUGH SECRETARY, (TRANSPORT), UTTARAKHAND, DEHRADUN,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SECTION 74 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) authorises Regional Transport Authority to grant contract carriage permits. In the instant case, the Regional Transport Authority has issued a notification and thereby has disclosed that 10 permits may be granted on the route on which appellant is plying his vehicle on the basis of contract carriage permit issued in his favour. While appellant has been accorded contract carriage permit to ply buses; in the decision of the Regional Transport Authority, referred to above, it has indicated that 10 contract carriage permits may be issued to ply light motor vehicles. In the writ petition, appellant contended that the same was not permissible. The writ petition has been rejected on the ground that the appellant has an alternative efficacious remedy under Section 89(1) of the Act. Section 89(1) of the Act is as follows: -

(2.) AS would be evidenced from Section 89(1) of the Act, the order impugned in the writ petition is not covered by Clauses (a), (b),(c),(d),(e) & (f) thereof. The order impugned in the writ petition may be covered by Clause (g) of sub -section (1) of Section 89 of the Act. However, it has not been shown before us that the order impugned in the writ petition has been prescribed as one of the orders against which an appeal will lie.

(3.) FOR the reasons indicated above, we are of the view that the appellant had no alternative efficacious remedy, where he could seek redressal of his grievance highlighted in the writ petition.