Judgment N.K. Jain, J.-This writ petition under Article 226 has been filed by Dhulji to restrain the R.T.A., Udaipur from considering any application and granting and issuing any permit on Banswara to Pratappur via Thikaria route. 2. Thewrit petition has been filed on 14-12-1992. While admitting the writ petition, this Court on 12-1-1993 restrained the R.T.A., Udaipur from granting any permit either temporary or non-temporary on the route in question. One Smt. Laxmi Devi filed an application for impleading her as a party-respondent to this writ petition on the ground that non-temporary stage carriage permit was not granted to her due to stay order, which was allowed by the order of this Court dated 24-1-1994. The ad interim order was confirmed on 20-1-1995. The non-petitioners filed reply on 7-3-1995. The matter has come up before me and as agreed by the learned Counsel for the parties, the matter has been heard finally. 3. Mr. Munshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner has mainly contended that the route Banswara to Pratappur is overlapped by two notified routes in a length of 12 kms. and that being so, the R.T. A., Udaipur has no jurisdiction even to entertain the application for the grant of a permit on the route in question. 4. Mr. Dave, learned Counsel for the R.T.A. has submitted that it is wrong to contend that the overlapping portion is 12 kms. but as a matter of fact the overlapping portion is 8 kms. He has also submitted that even if any overlapping is more than 10 kms., the aggrieved party is only R.S.R.T.C. and not the petitioner who is a private operator. 5. Mr. R. K. Purohit submits that facts stated by the petitioner are wholly wrong and route in question is overlapping less than 10 kms. from the prescribed limit. In this respect, he places reliance on the decision of this Court rendered in Chiranjit v. R.T.A., Bikaner, AIR 1993 Raj 134 and submits that private operators have no locus standi to challenge grant of permit. 6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. 7. Undoubtedly, the R.T.A. is within its competence to consider and grant the permit within the corridor conditions. 6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. 7. Undoubtedly, the R.T.A. is within its competence to consider and grant the permit within the corridor conditions. In this case, no permit has been granted and there is serious dispute about the length of overlapped route in question, therefore I am not inclined to interfere in the extraordinary jurisdiction since the petition involves a disputed question of fact which cannot be investigated in the writ jurisdiction. Before considering the application of the respondent, the petitioner has obtained the stay order and yet permit or the route in question has not been granted, therefore, stay deserves to be vacated. It is always expected from the authorities to act according to law, so no direction is required to be issued. 7.In the result, the writ petition has no force and the same is hereby dismissed. The stay order dated 12-1-93 and dated 20-1-1995 is vacated.