Judicial review of administrative decisions should not substitute statutory remedies when available; the court affirmed the prioritization of alternative remedies under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Panigrahi, J.

1. The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking a direction to quash the order dated 18.10.2024 and the Notification dated 21.10.24, specifically challenging Slot No.73 as the same is alleged to be in contravention of this Court’s direction for the issuance of a Temporary Permit (TP) for the petitioner’s vehicle on the Bhubaneswar to Patasanipur route.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(i) The Petitioner, as the registered owner of Vehicle No. OD-05-BL-6899, applied for a Temporary Permit for the route Bhubaneswar to Patasanipur under Category-C, Slot No. 73 (vacant slot) in accordance with the provisions of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988. The Petitioner had submitted the relevant documentation for the Stage Carriage Permit on 31.05.2023.

(ii) A Committee Meeting was held on 14.07.2023 to consider objections from stakeholders, during which marks were awarded to the applications. The Petitioner applied for a new Temporary Permit from Patasanipur to Bhubaneswar in Slot No. 73, but the objections raised by the Petitioner regarding another applicant’s permit were not addressed immediately.

(iii) The Petitioner previously filed a writ petition (W.P. (C) No. 14777 of 2024), challenging the delay in granting the Temporary Permit. This Court disposed of the petition on 05.08.2024, directing the issuance of the Temporary Permit to the Petitioner in line with the order dated 03.01.2024 passed by the Secretary, STA and approved by the Chairman, STA.

(iv) Despite the order of this Court, the Temporary Permit was issued on 18.10.2024, nearly two months after the Court’s direction. The permit granted was for 28 days on the route Chandbali to Bhubaneswar, which was not the route requested by the Petitioner.

(v) The Petitioner made efforts to resolve the issue by approaching Opposite Party No. 3 on 08.08.2024, submitting a copy of the Court’s order in an attempt to expedite the issuance of the Temporary Permit, but the process was further delayed.

(vi) A Notification dated 21.10.2024 issued by the Opposite Parties listed Slot No. 73, but the Petitioner’s requested route was not included. Instead, the Notification accommodated other routes, leading the Petitioner to claim that the authorities deliberately avoided considering the requested route.

(vii) The Opposite Parties argue that the Temporary Permit granted to the Petitioner was explicitly for the route Chandbali to Bhubaneswar via Bhadrak and Chandikhol, as stated in the order dated 03.01.2024. They assert that the Bhubaneswar to Patasanipur route was never part of the approved permit.

(viii) The Opposite Parties have clarified that Slot 73 is earmarked for Category C routes, covering Bhubaneswar to Bhadrakh, and that extending the route beyond Bhadrakh, including to Patasanipur, is not permissible under the rationalized timetable.

(ix) Following the Notification on 21.10.2024, two applications for the permanent permit for the route were received by the Opposite Parties. These applications were placed before the STA for consideration on 05.11.2024.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:

(i) The main contention is that the authorities failed to adhere to the High Court’s order issued on 05.08.2024, directing the immediate issuance of the TP for the Bhubaneswar to Patasanipur route. Instead, the authorities granted a 28-day TP for an alternate route (Chandbali to Bhubaneswar), which was not part of the Petitioner’s application.

(ii) The Petitioner alleges