J U D G M E N T

The petitioner challenges the Ext.P10 order passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad, whereby a fresh regular stage carriage permit was granted to the 3^rd respondent on an inter- district route overlapping the petitioner’s existing regular permit. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that the Regional Transport Authority failed to consider the objections raised by the petitioner regarding substantial route overlap and timing clash, and proceeded to grant the permit in derogation of the statutory scheme under the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules. According to the petitioner, the impugned order has been passed without a proper assessment of the existing services on the route and without recording any cogent reasons justifying the grant.

2. Against the order impugned in the writ petition, the petitioner has an alternate efficacious statutory remedy under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on the judgment of Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Others [ (1998) 8 SCC 1 ], submits that since statutory violations are all