( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

( 2 ) IN these bunch of writ petitions, the facts of S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5901/09 will serve the purpose, as all the petitioners are seeking implementation of the order dated 18. 5. 2009 by which the permits to run the motor vehicles on the routes referred in the order have been granted. The reciprocal transport agreement has been made between the States of rajasthan and Haryana on September 12, 2008 in respect of inter-states route which includes the routes referred in the present writ petitions. Both the State have fixed the limit of 4 permits with 8 single trip from Rajasthan side and two permits with 8 single trip from Haryana side, as was the case in S. B. Civil Writ petition No. 5901/08 and this route finds place at S. No. 86 in Annexure 2 which is schedule of inter-state routes on which private operators of Rajasthan and haryana Roadways shall ply their buses. For grant of permit on these routes referred in the writ petitions, the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, bikaner issued notification dated 4. 2. 2009 inviting applications for grant of permits on the said route. The petitioners applied for the grant of such permit. The Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner granted various permits and copies of the permits have been placed on record by the petitioners. The "petitioners even after order dated 18. 5. 2009, have not been given permits to ply the buses on the routes referred in the order dated 18. 5. 2009, therefore, the petitioners preferred these writ petitions seeking direction against the respondent that the secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner be directed to issue sanction permits to the petitioners on the routes sanctioned by the order/resolution dated 18. 5. 2009. The petitioners contention is that the respondents, without any rhyme and reason, are not issuing the permits in spite of the fact that the competent authority has passed the order to issue the permits.

( 3 ) THE learned Additional Advocate General Shri Punia vehemently submitted that the writ petitions of the petitioners are not maintainable in view of the fact that the order dated 18. 5. 2009 has been appealed by the aggrieved parties wherein interim orders have been passed and further submitted that in view of the availability of the alternative remedy, these writ petitions may be dismissed. However, on merit it has been submitted that about 800 permits were granted and the matter was reported to the Anti corruption Department and at the relevant time, the matter was under investigation. It is submitted that in identical facts and circumstances, S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8982/09-Narendra Kumar vs. State and Ors. was dismissed by this Court on 16. 9. 2009, S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6652/09 -Yasin Khan and ors. vs. The State of Raj. and Ors. was dismissed by the Jaipur Bench of this court vide order dated 4. 8. 2009 and the Public interest Litigation, which is D. B. Civil Writ No. 6336/09 - Nihal Singh vs. State of Raj. and Ors. was dismissed by the Division Bench at Jaipur of the Rajasthan High Court on 19. 9. 2009.

( 4 ) I considered the submissions of the learned counsel for parties and perused the order dated 18. 5. 2009 and orders/judgments referred above.

( 5 ) IT is not in dispute that by order dated 18. 5. 2009, several permits were granted. Whether this order dated 18. 5. 2009 is appealable or not, is the core question. Sub-section (1) of Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is as under:-

"89. Appeal. (1) Any person- (a) aggrieved by the refusal of the State or a Regional Transport authority to grant a permit, or by any condition attached to a permit granted to him; or (b) aggrieved by the revocation or suspension of the permit or by any variation of the conditions thereof; or (c) aggrieved by the refusal to transfer the permit under Section 82; or (d) aggrieved by the refusal of the State or a Regional Transport authority to countersign a permit,