JUDGMENT 1. - This Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against the Order dated 5.10.2012 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hanumangarh and order dated 16.10.2014 passed by Additional District Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh, hereby the application filed by the petitioners under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. as well as the Appeal arising out of the order have been rejected respectively. 2. The petitioners filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents, inter alia, seeking relief that the Respondents No. 4 to 6 i.e. Food Corporation of India and its Depot Managers, be restrained from transporting the goods through illegal and unauthorized vehicles. The petitioners, who are Truck Operators alleged that the Tractor Trollies are being used for transportation of wheat etc., which is not permissible under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 and the Respondents No. 4 to 6 were permitting violation of law. 3. The Application was opposed by the respondents including the District Transport Officer and District Superintendent of Police. 4. The Trial Court after hearing the parties on Application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C., did not find any prima facie case in favour of the petitioners and rejected the application. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners filed Appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 (i) C.P.C. The Appellate Court after hearing came to the conclusion that the District Transport Officer and other officials are bound to take action against illegal vehicles and a prayer before the Civil Court seeking direction against the officers for performance of their duties cannot be maintained and consequently, dismissed the Appeal as well. 6. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioners that despite the clear stipulation under law that the Tractors cannot be used for commercial purposes,' the respondents were permitting such transportation and, therefore, the petitioners filed the suit seeking injunction. Both the Courts below were not justified in dismissing the temporary injunction application as it was proved on record that in fact transportation by Tractor Trollies for commercial purposes was being undertaken and the respondent-Food Corporation of India was not taking any steps for stopping the same. It was also brought to the notice that a public interest Writ Petition i.e. D.B. Civil Writ (PIL) No. 4338/2014 - Subhash Singh Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. It was also brought to the notice that a public interest Writ Petition i.e. D.B. Civil Writ (PIL) No. 4338/2014 - Subhash Singh Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. , seeking similar relief was filed before this' Court, when a Order dated 19.9.2013 was issued by the respondents permitting such transportation and this Court initially stayed the operation of the Order dated 19.9.2013 and when the order was withdrawn by Order dated 22.4.2015, the Writ Petition was dismissed as infructuous and, therefore, on that count also the Courts below were required to interfere in the matter. 7. I have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioners and have perused the material placed on record. 8. A bare look at the plaint indicates that the petitioners, who are Truck Operators have filed the present suit seeking enforcement of provisions pertaining to user of Tractor trollies. The plaint nowhere indicates that the same has been filed in the nature of Order I, Rule 8 C.P.C. and, apparently, the petitioners only or account of the fact that if the transportation was not permitted by the Tractor Trollies would consequentially get the transportation contracts from the respondents, cannot be apparently said to be persons aggrieved against the action of the respondents. 9. The Appellate Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that no statutory authority can be directed to perform its duties and in case the transportation by unauthorized/prohibited means is being undertaken, there is no reason to assume that the same shall not be taken care of. 10. Further, the principle regarding grant of injunction is well settled that an injunction, which the Court cannot supervise, cannot be granted and the nature of injunction sought by the petitioners essentially seeks the Court to supervise the performance of the respondents as to whether they were conducting their duties properly regarding to so called unauthorized vehicles, which apparently cannot be granted.In view of the above discussion, the orders passed by both the Courts below cannot be faulted.Consequently, there is no substance in the Writ Petition, the same is therefore, dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******