JUDGMENT 1. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners being aggrieved with the action of the respondent - transport authorities of not issuing fresh stage carriage permits to operate city buses on City Bus Route No.15 + 15 A in the city of Jodhpur. 2. Since, the controversy involved in these writ petitions is identical, the facts of SBCWP No.13693/2020 - Shri Anil Bhati v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. are taken into consideration for adjudicating the dispute. 3. The petitioner has filed an application on 5.4.2018 before the respondent No.2 - the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur for grant of one stage carriage permit to operate city bus on City Bus Route No.15 + 15 A, which came to be disposed of by the respondent No.2 vide order dated 31.5.2019 while observing that since sufficient number of public transport is available on the aforesaid route; there is no demand from the public at large to raise stage carriage permits; taking into consideration the prevalent traffic load and as there is no vacancy available, the application for issuance of additional/fresh stage carriage permit filed by the petitioner is liable to be rejected. The respondent No.2 has also observed that as per the order dated 27.2.2007 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in DBCWP No.6073/1993 - Mahendra Lodha v. State of Rajasthan, the number of permits to the city buses cannot be issued more than 250 as per the observations made by the National Green Tribunal, Central Zone Bench, Bhopal in Application No.49/2014 about increasing pollution in the city of Jodhpur, it is not advisable to issue fresh stage carriage permits on the concerned city bus routes. 4. Being aggrieved with the rejection of the application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 31.5.2019, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, however, the said appeal came to be dismissed vide order dated 28.2.2020 (Annex.7). 5. Being aggrieved with the orders dated 31.5.2019 and 28.2.2020 passed by the respondent Nos.2 and 4 respectively, the petitioners have preferred these writ petitions. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the action of the respondents of rejecting petitioners' applications for issuance of additional/fresh stage carriage permits on City Bus Route No.15 + 15A is absolutely illegal. 5. Being aggrieved with the orders dated 31.5.2019 and 28.2.2020 passed by the respondent Nos.2 and 4 respectively, the petitioners have preferred these writ petitions. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the action of the respondents of rejecting petitioners' applications for issuance of additional/fresh stage carriage permits on City Bus Route No.15 + 15A is absolutely illegal. It is further argued that the Division Bench of this Court in Mahendra Lodha's case (supra) has restrained the number of permits up to 250 on the route in question, but as a matter of fact, against 250 permits, only 216 permits are in operation and, as such, vacancies are available, but the respondents have illegally rejected the applications filed by the petitioners while holding that no vacancy is available. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act of 1988'), no limit for grant of permits can be fixed under the said Act. It is argued that Sub-section (3) of Section 71 of the Act of 1988 provides that the State Government could not exercise the function of limiting operation of vehicles by fixing the number of the same unless the Central Government forms an opinion in this regard. 8. It is argued that in the instant case, the Central Government has not formed any opinion with regard to number of such vehicles and, therefore, the action of the respondent Nos.2 and 4 of not granting stage carriage permits to the petitioners is absolutely illegal and without jurisdiction. It is submitted that in the absence of necessary statistics, the respondent - transport authorities cannot be allowed to reject the applications of the petitioners for grant of stage carriage permits merely by saying that there is no vacancy of permit and the route is adequately served by existing operators and further grant of permit will lead to congestion. It is further argued that the need of increase in permits on the concerned city bus route is very much there as the limit of issuing 250 permits was fixed way back in the year 2007 in Mahendra Lodha's case (supra), however, after the year 2000, population is increased and the requirement of more public transport is very much there. 9. 9. It is also submitted that the existing number of permits i.e. 216 is not sufficient to cater the needs of the public at large, however, the respondent - transport authorities have failed to take into consideration the above situation and have illegally rejected the petitioners' applications for issuing additional stage carriage permits on the route in question. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also contended that the traffic on the concerned route is decreased since 2020 and, as such, issuance of additional stage carriage permits on the concerned route will not result in traffic congestion or increase of pollution. It is, thus, prayed that the impugned orders passed by the respondent - transport authorities may kindly be set aside and the respondent - transport authorities be directed to grant stage carriage permits to the petitioners on the city bus route No.15 + 15A in the Jodhpur city. 11. In support of the submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decision of the Kerala High Court rendered in the case of Saidalavi v. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram and Ors. [WP (C). No.10617 of 2013 (B). D/d. 06.10.2016]; decision of Uttarakhand High Court in the case of Vivek Kumar Tandon v. State of Uttaranchal & Ors., reported in 2009 AIHC 1034 and decisions of the Madras High Court in the cases of S. 12. Raja v. The Secretary (Home) Transport III Department, State Government of Tamilnadu & Ors. [W.P. No.12531 of 2020 and W.M.P.Nos.15782 and 15784 of 2020 D/d. 06.10.2020 and Thomas Madasamy v. The Regional Transport Officer Madurai [W.P.(MD) Nos.6729, 6730, 6731, 6732, 6733 and 6734 of 2019 and W.P. (MD) No.6729 of 2019 D/d. 23.07.2020. 13. Opposing the writ petitions, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are not maintainable as the petitioners are having an alternate and efficacious remedy of filing appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal as constituted under the provisions of Section 89(2) of the Act of 1988. The respondents have also urged that the petitioners have filed these writ petitions challenging the orders dated 31.5.2019 and 28.2.2020 passed by the respondent Nos.2 and 4 respectively and the letter dated 30.11.2002 issued by the Transport Commissioner and due to misjoinder clubbing of two different cause of actions, these writ petitions are not maintainable on merits. 14. The respondents have also urged that the petitioners have filed these writ petitions challenging the orders dated 31.5.2019 and 28.2.2020 passed by the respondent Nos.2 and 4 respectively and the letter dated 30.11.2002 issued by the Transport Commissioner and due to misjoinder clubbing of two different cause of actions, these writ petitions are not maintainable on merits. 14. Learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the respondent - transport authorities have not committed any illegality in passing the impugned orders while taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case. It is submitted that at present, there is no need for increase of stage carriage permits on the concerned routes as sufficient number of public transport vehicles are plying on the said routes and increase in number of said permits will result into traffic congestion and increase of pollution. It is also argued that the Regional Transport Authority is very much in jurisdiction in declining to issue fresh permits on the concerned routes and there is no force in these writ petitions and the same are liable to be dismissed. 15. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 16. So far as the preliminary objection raised by learned counsel for the respondents is concerned, I am of the view that merely availability of alternate remedy is not a bar in entertaining the writ petitions by the High Court while exercising its extra ordinary jurisdiction. It is true that ordinarily a writ court cannot entertain a petition where remedy of filing statutory appeal is available to the party, but it is also true that availability of alternate remedy itself is not a bar in entertaining a petition in its extra ordinary jurisdiction and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court can entertain a petition despite availability of alternate remedy. 17. The facts of the present case are clear and unambiguous, hence, this Court decides to ignore the preliminary objection raised by learned counsel for the respondents and proceeds to decide the writ petitions on merits. 18. 17. The facts of the present case are clear and unambiguous, hence, this Court decides to ignore the preliminary objection raised by learned counsel for the respondents and proceeds to decide the writ petitions on merits. 18. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners to the effect that as per the provisions of Sub- section 71(3) of the Act of 1988, the respondent - transport authorities have no jurisdiction to limit the number of stage carriage permits or contract carriage permits until and unless the Central Government forms an opinion with regard to the number of vehicles, road conditions and other relevant factors is concerned, the same has lost its relevance because the number of stage carriage permits in the Jodhpur city is restricted up to 250 as per the directions issued by this Court in Mahendra Lodha's case (supra). The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Mahendra Lodha's case (supra) has passed the order dated 21.11.2000, relevant portion whereof, reads as under : 19. "G. One of the major pollutants identified in various affidavits is the Tempos. We are informed that there are about 436 Tempos plying in the city. In addition, there are three wheelers, city buses, mini doors. Considering the material available on record, it is directed that there shall be complete ban on moving of tempos on the main road starting from Darpan Cinema to Sojati Gate, Railway Station and Jalori Gate. On these routes, the number of city buses shall also be reduced to 250." 20. The said order/directions issued by the Division Bench in Mahendra Lodha's case (supra) made absolute vide judgment dated 19.2.2007 while disposing the above-referred case. As such, it is clear that number of stage carriage permits for city buses on the concerned route i.e. 15 + 15A, starting from Darpan Cinema to Sojati Gate, Railway Station and Jalori Gate is restricted to 250. 21. Now the question remains as to whether the respondent - transport authorities are justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioners for issuing stage carriage permits on the concerned city bus route. It is not in dispute that out of maximum limit of 250 stage carriage permits, only 216 are in currency. 21. Now the question remains as to whether the respondent - transport authorities are justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioners for issuing stage carriage permits on the concerned city bus route. It is not in dispute that out of maximum limit of 250 stage carriage permits, only 216 are in currency. The respondent - transport authorities had refused to grant additional stage carriage permits on the concerned city bus route, firstly, on the ground that sufficient public transport is available on the concerned route and if the number of permits is increased on the said route, it may lead to traffic congestion and increase in pollution, whereas the National Green Tribunal, Central Zone Bench, Bhopal has already raised concern about increase of pollution in the Jodhpur city. The respondent - transport authorities have also observed that since sufficient number of public transport is available, there is no public demand to increase the means of public transport and taking into consideration the existing traffic congestion, it is not advisable to issue new permits. It is true that under the liberalized policy, ordinarily the transport authorities should not refuse to grant permit, however, as per proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 80 of the Act of 1988, the Regional Transport Authority, State Transport Authority or any other prescribed Authority can refuse the application for grant of permit after providing reasons in writing and after providing opportunity of being heard to the applicant. In the present matter, opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioners and reasons have also been given by the respondent - transport authorities for refusing to issue new state carriage permit in favour of the petitioners. 22. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioners that traffic on the concerned route is decreased is difficult to digest. The Division Bench of this Court, way back in the year 2000, after taking into consideration the traffic conditions and the possibility of increase in pollution, has restricted the number of permits on the concerned route up to 250 and it cannot be said that the traffic on the concerned route is decreased today i.e. in the year 2022 and risk of increase of pollution is not there. Everyone knows that with the increase of population, number of vehicles, private or public, have been increased enormously. Everyone knows that with the increase of population, number of vehicles, private or public, have been increased enormously. The traffic on the said route increased manifold since year 2000 and, in such situation, no direction can at all be issued for increase in the permits. 23. Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the reasons supplied by the respondent - transport authorities for not issuing permits in favour of the petitioners cannot be said to be unreasonable or unjustified in any manner. 24. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mithilesh Garg and Ors. v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1345 of 1989, decided on 22.11.1991] has held as under : "17. ...... It is not disputed that the Regional Transport Authority has the power under the Act to refuse an application for grant of permit by giving reasons. It is for the authority to take into consideration all the relevant factors at the time of quasi- judicial consideration of the applications for grant of permits. The statutory authorities under the Act are bound to keep a watch on the erroneous and illegal exercise of power in granting permits under the liberalised policy." 25. The Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Kalyan Chakrabarty [M.A.T. Nos.1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 2356, 2357 and 2358 of 2005, decided on 8.9.2005] has held as under : "30. Considering all such facts and circumstances and having regard to the aforesaid discussion we are of the opinion that the respondent cannot be said to have unfettered right to get a permit for operating an Auto-Rickshaw in the route for which application was made. The right under Section 74 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is also subject to reasonable restrictions. Such restrictions may emanate from various sources which include a subsequent change of situation arising out of too little space for too many vehicles, congestion, pollution, road conditions, public conveyance and so on and so forth." 26. There is no quarrel about the ratio of the judgments rendered by different High Courts on which learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance, however, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the same are of no help to the petitioners. 27. There is no quarrel about the ratio of the judgments rendered by different High Courts on which learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance, however, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the same are of no help to the petitioners. 27. In view of the above discussion, the writ petitions being bereft of force are hereby dismissed. 28. Stay petitions are also dismissed.