ORDER
N.K. Jain, J.
1. By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to quash the order dt. 1-.2-1993 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur and also the order dt. 1-7-1992 passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur. The petitioner has also prayed that the Time-table dt. 15-7-1992 issued by the Secretary to the R.T.A., Jodhpur may kindly be set aside.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
3. The main contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that in view of the decision rendered in Ram Niwas v. S. T. A. T., (1993) 2 WLC 262, at one time or in piecemeal, a route can be extended not more than 24 kms. in length and not beyond that whereas in this case the extension has been allowed to the respondents Nos. 3 to 5 for more than 24 kms., which deserves to be set aside. He has also submitted that the impugned time-table has been issued to put the petitioner and the other grantee of the permit to irreparable loss. He has further submitted that no extension can be made for second time.
4. Mr. Maheshwari, learned counsel for the non-petitioners submitted that the petitioner has no locus standi as he is not an aggrieved person in view of the New Motor Vehicles Act. He has submitted that the finding of fact arrived at by the learned Tribunal cannot be disturbed by this Court in the writ jurisdiction. He has further submitted that the writ petition suffers from the vice of misjoinder of cause of action as the petitioner has challenged the issuance of time-table by the Secretary to the R.T.A. on 15-7-1992, by way of this writ petition.
5. Mr. Dave, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Regional Transport Authority has contended that the petitioner cannot agitate the point of issuance of time-table in this writ petition at this stage. He has also contended that both the time extension was not made on the same route but the alleged second extension was made on a different route, so there is no error.
6. It is no doubt true that in view of Section 80(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, no extension can be allowed in which inclusion and extension is in a length of more than 24 kms. In the instant case vide order dt. 30-3-1992 extension of less than 24 kms. was made from Mohangarh to Sadrau. Thereafter by the order dt. 1-7-1992, extension was made from Thaiyat to Jaisalmer. Undisputed, after the order dt. 30-3-1992, routes in question were amalgamated vide order dt. 13-5-1992. The learned Tribunal after considering the material on record has found that both these routes are different and there is no restriction for the extension of the one or other route. The Tribunal has also observed that the petitioner also got the same route extended, therefore, it is not proper for him to challenge the extension made in favour of the non-petitioners. So far as the argumeat that due to issuance of impugned time-table the petitioner has suffered loss is concerned, a perusal of the time-table Anx. 5 reveals that in the same order 15 days’ time was given to raise objections but instead of raising objections before the concerned authorities, the petitioner has filed this writ petition, therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner on this count also. Under these circumstances, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal in this writ petition.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition has no force and the same is hereby dismissed.