( 2 ) THIS writ petition has been filed by petitioner Omprakash, who in response to notification issued by the secretary, Regional transport Authority, Bikaner applied for grant of permit. In fact, Secretary, Regional transport Authority, Bikaner vide the aforesaid notification dated 4-2-2009 invited applications for grant of permit for as many as 12 different routes. This notification was issued pursuant to agreement dated 12-9-2008 between the State of Rajasthan and the State of Haryana. About 1300 applications are stated to have been received in response to the aforesaid notification for the route of Bhadra to Hisar via Adampur. Petitioner also applied for the same route. One such applicant was the intervenor Rajkumar singh. Regional Transport Authority heard arguments on all such applications on 25-3-2009 and thereafter fixed the matter on 30-3-2009 for further hearing on which date, arguments were concluded and judgment was reserved. According to the petitioner, regional Transport Authority entertained doubts whether in view of the model code of conduct enforced by the Election Commission of India, it could decide the application and pass appropriate orders in terms of Sections 68 and 72 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It therefore approached the Chief Electoral Officer of the State for clarification/ permission. Attested copy of relevant note-sheet has been produced on record. It is contended that Chief Electoral Officer on 17-4-2008 directed that although hearing of the matter may take place but the final order should be passed only after the election process is over.

( 3 ) SHRI J. K. Singhi, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Regional transport Authority exercise quasi-judicial powers under Sections 68 to 72 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is an independent statutory body which has to judicially apply its mind and after hearing of the interested parties, pass appropriate order. Its functioning cannot therefore be controlled or otherwise regulated by some other authority. Learned counsel in support of his argument relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in pancham Chand and Ors. v. State of himachal Pradesh and Ors. , (2008) 7 SCC 117 : AIR 2008 SC 1888 and submitted that supreme Court in that case while analyzing the issue of functioning of the Regional transport Authority held that the authority is an independent quasi-judicial body which is required to act in terms of the Act. Learned counsel also relied on the judgment of Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Dr. Y. Sivaji v. The Election Commissioner, new Delhi and others : AIR 1996 AP 336 and argued that the Election Commission has no power to give direction to any quasi-judicial authority or otherwise hamper functioning of such bodies by recourse to model code of conduct.

( 4 ) SHRI B. C. Chirania, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1-Chief Electoral Officer of the State has submitted that no new permit can be granted by the Regional Transport Authority during the period model code of conduct remains in force. He in this connection has referred to clause 10 (f) of the model code of conduct and submitted that by the aforesaid clause, it has been provided that prior permission of the election Commission shall be required for signing a memorandum of understanding or an agreement where Government is a party. It is contended that since in the present matter, the Regional Transport Authority itself approached the Election Commission, the Chief Electoral Officer has obviously take a view of the matter, who advised the Authority to go ahead with the hearing of the matter but may not pass the final order till election process is over. Learned counsel submitted that ratio of the cited judgments cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. Petitioner is only one of the applicants out of 1300 and at his instance alone, writ petition cannot be entertained. Writ petition be therefore dis