Honble MATHUR, J.–This Special Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 12.4.2004 dismissing the writ petition.

(2). The relevant facts giving rise to instant Special Appeal are that the Regional Transport Authority, Sikar (in short ``the RTA) notified the vacancies for grant of two non-temporary stage carriage permits for single trips on the interstate route Rajgarh Hissar via Jhupa vide notification dated 5.8.2003. Pursuant to the said notification, the appellant offered the vehicle of the Model 2003. The RTA considered all the applications in its meeting held on 10.2.2004. As per the circulation note, the appellants application was listed at S.No. 34. The RTA vide its resolution dated 5.3.2004 granted permit in favour of respondent No.3 Bhart Singh and respondent No.4 Sube Singh, whose applications were listed at S.Nos. 40 and 41 respectively. The resolution indicates that third respondent was given preference being an ex-service man and the fourth respondent being a member of the scheduled caste. The appellant challenged the said resolution dated 5.3.2004 before this Court by way of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India inter alia on the ground that the grant of permit on the interstate route is regulated by the provisions of Section 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, hereinafter referred-to as ``the Act of 1988. Neither under the Act of 1988 nor under reciprocal transport agreement entered-into in between the State of Rajasthan and State of Haryana, there is any provision for reservation of the permit in favour of the scheduled caste and scheduled tribe or ex-service man nor there is any provision to give preference to them while granting permit under the existing vacancies on any interstate route. The writ petition was contested by the contesting respondents inter alia on the ground that they were granted permit not only on the ground of being ex- service man or person of S.C./S.T. but they were preferred because (i) they hold no permit on any interstate route; (ii) they are local residents; and (iii) they are capable of managing transport business. It was further submitted that in consideration to the appellant not being the local resident, preference to second and third respondents being local residents, was a proper and reasonable consideration in the interest of the travelling public. The respondents also sought dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of having not availed statutory alternative remedy of appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (in short ``the STAT) under Section 89 of the Act of 1988.

(3). Learned Single Judge held that whether the provisions of Section 71 of the Act of 1988 are applicable for grant of stage carriage permits for city routes and not for interstate routes and whether the provisions of Section 71 of the Act of 1988 are applicable for grant of stage carriage permits on inter-state route on priority basis in favour of the ex-service man or members of the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes category or not, are all such type of mixed questions of law and fact, upon which this Court would not like to straightway give express opinion or substitute its own decision unless there is a fair exercise by the statutory authority i.e. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, which is a statutory Tribunal sitting in appeal over the orders of the Regional Transport Authority.

(4). It is contended by Mr. Sangeet Lodha, learned counsel for the appellant, that the learned Single Judge has committed serious illegality in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy. It is submitted that whether there is any provision in the Act of 1988 providing reservation or whether the RTA has any jurisdiction to grant a permit by providing reservation de hors the provisions of the Act of 1988 are pure question of law and no factual aspect is required to be examined in the matter, therefore, by no stretch of imagination, it can be

Click Here to Read the rest of this document