The court affirmed the necessity of pursuing statutory alternate remedies before invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT

The writ petition is filed with the following prayers.

“1) To call for records leading to issuance of Ext. P9 order and issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction or order to quash Ext. P9.

2) To declare petitioner entitled for renewal of permit for Ext. P1 vehicle in lieu of Ext. P6 declaration.

3) To issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction or order to 1^st respondent to accept Ext.P6 as Deemed No Objection Certificate and allow petitioner renewal application for Ext. P1 vehicle.

And

4) Such other Writ, Orders or Directions deem fit on facts and in the interest of justice.”

2. Ext.P9 is an order passed refusing to renew the permit sought by the petitioner. The petitioner has an alternate, effective remedy against the rejection under Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act .

3. This court has already considered and passed judgment in W.P.(C) No.2328 of 2026 as to why such cases should be relegated to the alternate remedy.

4. In view of the above, I am not inclined to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to avail the alternate remedy on all available grounds.

Sd/-