ORDER
1. I have heard the learned Advocates. One of the points canvassed on behalf of the respondents is that the petitioner ought to have approached the Tribunal and that it should not have come directly to this Court. Mr. Shetty on behalf of the petitioner drew my attention to an earlier decision of this Court in K.S.R.T.C. v Pauli Govis and Another, wherein my Brother Thakur, J., while going into the question of jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the writ petition in situations where the alternate remedy is available has laid down that there is no absolute bar in approaching the High Court though, the party would be governed by the self-imposed restriction of the Courts namely that if an alternate remedy is available normally this Court should not entertain the writ petition. The principal reason for this is because the party cannot be permitted to bypass the straight remedy available under the law and in the process, the High Court cannot be overloaded with litigation which is required to be directed to other forums. There are exceptional situations undoubtedly where the petitioner or the learned Advocate concerned may point out to the Court that there is valid reason for approaching the High Court such as a case in which the validity of the provision is challenged or the situation in which the matter is interlinked with some earlier orders passed by the Court or, if it is demonstrated that the types of relief asked for is not one which the Tribunal
would have been in a position to grant. This being the position, one would have to ascertain from the facts of the present case as to whether the Tribunal was competent in the present case to examine the dispute and pass appropriate orders. The answer to that question is in the affirmative.
2. This is a simple case in which Mr. Shetty points out that the authority has issued the permit in respect of a notified route despite the objection from the K.S.R.T.C. His further submission is that the request for route survey was not conducted as this would have indicated to the authority what the correct factual position is. There is considerable substance in what is pointed out by Mr. Shetty, but on the other hand the learned Advocate who represents the grantee has submitted before me that the overlapping area is only about 2 kilometres and that it is within the area of a local authority. It is not possible for this Court to decide –such disputed questions of fact and the petitioner’s learned Advocate is therefore justified when he points out that the authority would have been well advised to have conducted the route survey before overruling the objections. I do concede that there may be a small class of cases wherein the dispute could be resolved through other evidence such as reliable documentary material of the nature of maps etc. If that were to be the position the authority should have indicated so in the order.
3. I do not consider it desirable formally to remand the present case for de novo consideration at this stage because the permit was issued several years back and this petition itself has been pending for a long time in this Court. The permit would be due for renewal, and in the interest of justice it would be satisfied if the authorities are directed, at the time of renewal, not to renew the permit unless proper verification is done after hearing the petitioner namely the K.S.R.T.C. It shall be the equal duty of the K.S.R.T.C. to record their objections in writing supported by documentary material such as maps or charts. With these directions, the writ petition to stand disposed of.