AVINASH SOMAKANT BHATE, J.

( 1 ) WRIT petition is disposed of after hearing the learned Counsel for both sides. The contention of the learned Government pleader for Transport is that the petitioner has not exhausted the remedy available under Section 207 (2) of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988 (hereafter referred to as the act)) before approaching this Court and therefore, as alternate remedy exists, the petitioner should not be given any relief. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the petitioner says that Section 207 (2) of the Act is not obligatory. It is only directory and therefore, he can come to this Court. This argument has not much merit. When a remedy is provided by the Statute whether it is Mandatory or Optional, the petitioner should first exhaust that remedy if he wants the relief.

( 2 ) SECOND contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that in the instant case Section 207 (2) of the act does not apply because the violation alleged is only of breach of conditions of permit. There is no violation alleged in respect of not holding of valid documents. It is contended that Section 207 (2) of the Act requires that the Person-in-charge of the motor vehi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document