JUDGMENT 1. - It is a joint petition by four petitioners who are holding non-temporary stage carriage permits over inter-region routes namely Ratangarh-Salasar; (2) Fatehpur-Deedwana via Salasar; (3) Nawalgarh-Salasar; & (4) Alwar-Nogava. 2. It is not in dispute that all the four petitioners are holding valid permits upto April, 2012 - copies whereof having been placed on record as Ann.1. 3. Grievance of petitioners is that the respondent-Regional Transport Authority ("RTA") without taking note of Section 67(d) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("MV Act") regarding desirability of preventing uneconomic competition among permit holders, are issuing stage carriage permits in routines and since there are other transport vehicles (Jeeps Tractors, Jugad, Camel Cart) being illegally plied over routes in question, that certainly makes instant non-temporary stage carriage permit holders in viable and this creates uneconomic competition among permit holders. 4. While issuance of notices of writ & stay petition, interim order came to be passed on 03/06/2011 restraining respondents from issuing any further permits over the routes for which permits have been granted to the petitioners. 5. It appears that due to absolute interim order being passed, the very jurisdiction of the authority (RTA) in granting non-temporary stage carriage permits was seized and there was no occasion available for the authority to examine as to whether any additional permit looking to the requirement/need of public at large is desirable and that appears to be the reason that the respondent authority has moved application U/Art.226(3) of the Constitution seeking vacation of absolute interim order, alongwith reply to the writ petition being filed. 6. It is relevant to record that a vague statement has been made by petitioners in para 7 of writ petition in regard to operators plying their vehicles as per time table issued by the RTA but in whole of the petition, nothing was disclosed about minimum bare facts to be taken note of, namely how many total permits have been issued by the RTA - against which how many operators are functional and how many vehicles are plying over the route in question despite having no permits being issued by the RTA. In the absence of bare minimum facts being placed on record what has been contended by petitioners that respondents are not taking care of while granting permits, which may avoid uneconomical competition among permit holders as provided U/s 67(1)(d) of MV Act, can not be examined by this Court in its extra ordinary jurisdiction. 7. In fact the presumption is always in favour of the authority, upon whom the power has been vested that whenever permits are granted over the route in question, it is expected to take note of relevant provisions in particular Section 67(1)(d) of MV Act and unless otherwise proved, the Court finds substances that uneconomic competition among permit holders is to be avoided, but that can be looked into only if proper pleadings are on record. 8. Lastly Counsel for petitioners submits that atleast they may be granted liberty to make representation apprising the authority while such carriage permits being granted to other various operators. They are always at liberty to do so, if so advised in accordance with law. 9. However, this Court finds no justification to entertain writ petition since as observed (supra), there is no material on record - on the basis of which an inference can be drawn by the Court. Taking note whereof, what has been contended by the petitioners is without any factual foundation and this Court does not find any substance in the writ petition, which is wholly devoid of merit. 10. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Interim order dated 03/06/2011 stands vacated. No costs.Petition dismissed. *******