AVINASH SOMAKANT BHATE, J.

(1) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner has been operating Bus bearing Registration No. KA. 07/3144 on an inter-State route from Bangalore to V. Kota. V. Kota is in Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner complains that respondents 4 to 7 preferred applications before the State Transport Authority (STA) Bangalore for seeking a permit of a Stage Carriage on a route formulated from Bangalore to Pathanhalli via Andhra Pradesh State border at V. Kota etc., and vice-versa. It is alleged that the said route overlaps several approved schemes published in favour of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) as well as Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC). It is alleged that there are two approved schemes of Andhra Pradesh State published in G.O. Ms. No. 41, dated 5-1-1977 and G.O.Ms. No. 773 dated 3-6-1975. G.O.Ms. No. 41 scheme is in respect of route from Chittoor to Kupppam via Palmaner and V. Kota. Under the said scheme only existing permit holders on the inter-State routes have been exempted and there is a total ban or prohibition for future permits on the said inter-State route. Similarly G. O. Ms. No. 773 scheme does not permit any new issuance of permit on the inter-State route. Inspite of the total ban on issuance of new permits which overlap any of the routes under the above two schemes, respondent Nos. 4 to 7 have been granted permits, which are illegal and void as violative of Section 104 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 thereafter referred to as the New Act) and respondent Nos. 4 to 7 should be barred from operating any of their vehicle in the State of Andhra Pradesh unless counter-signature from the State Transport Authority (STA), Andhra Pradesh has been obtained by them for such routes. It is also alleged that they are not paying taxes to the State of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner contends that he made a representation to 2nd respondent on 3-6-1998 to take appropriate action against respondent Nos. 4 to 7 in this regard. Second respondent has directed the petitioner to approach the 1st respondent as later was the competent authority. The petitioner claims to have made a representation to respondent No, I on 4-8-1998. The 1st respondent then addressed a letter on 21-8-1998 to 2nd respondent for making certain factual verification. The 2nd respondent then informed the 1st respondent that the grant of permit to respondents 4 to 7 was violative of G.O.Ms. No. 41. The petitioner submits that in view of these developments, it was necessary for respondent No. 1 to take steps to stop operation of buses by respondent Nos. 4 to 7 in State of Andhra Pradesh. Instead of taking steps, respondent No. 1 addressed a letter dated 9-12-1998 to Secretary, STA., Karnataka. The STA Karnataka was requested to take suitable action. Respondent No. ! ought to have cancelled the permit or modified the permits of the existing route by exercising his jurisdiction. It is submitted that though the route for which respondent Nos. 4 to 7 have been granted permits have been shown as enclave route, the route start from Bangalore in Karnataka State and terminate at V. Kota bus stand in Andhra Pradesh State and were not enclave routes. The provisions of Section 89 (1) require counter-signature for such routes. The route is not covered by any inter-State agreement. It is therefore, contended that the action of respondent No. 1 in not implementing the law against respondent Nos. 4 to 7 is highly illegal as respondent Nos. 4 to 7 did not hold any valid permit. It is prayed that inaction of respondent No. 1 in not taking action on the representation made by petitioner dated 4-8-1998 is non-exercise of jurisdiction vested in him and hence direction is sought that respondent No. 1 be directed to take appropriate steps against respondent Nos. 4 to 7 in respect of routes granted to them by illegal permits.

(2) RESPONDENT Nos. 4 to 6 have taken a joint stand and respondent Nos. 1 to 7 has filed an independent counter.

(3) SUM and substance of the stand of respondent Nos. 4 to 7 is that petitioner has no focus standi to file writ petition in view of the settled legal position that existing bus operator cannot take exception to the act of the authorities in considering cases of or granting permits to some new operators after coming into force of the new Motor Vehicles Act of 1988. It is further contended that the routes granted to respondent Nos. 4 to 7 are enclave routes and for them no counter-signatures of Andhra Pradesh State - authorities required the route no where stops in State of Andhra Pradesh. It only goes through V. Kota but does not stop at V. Kota. Both the termini of the route are in the State of Karnataka and hence it is enclave route. It is further pointed out that Karnataka State RTC and Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation had taken objection before the STA., Bangalore, in granting permits to respondent Nos. 4 to 7. The said objections were overruled. Thereafter, revisions were filed before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (STAT), Bangalore against the order of STA, Karnataka. The revisions were dismissed. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the revisions filed by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, writ petitioners bearing Nos. 13159 and 13172 of 1998 were filed in the High Court of Karnataka. The said writ petitions were also dismissed, A Writ Appeal is pending against that decision of the learned single Judge. The petitioner has later tiled WP No. 6965-68 of 1999 before the High Court of Kamataka. The said writ petition is pending along with the Writ Appeal preferred by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation. The petitioner has suppressed these facts and therefore, on ground of suppression of material facts, the writ petition should be dismissed.

(4) THE fact that the petitioner is the existing operator is not a disputed one. The locus of an existing operator to challenge consideration or grant of permits to other operators, has been subject matter of several decisions. The Courts have held that an existing operator has no legal right or locus to challenge grant of State Carriage permits to new operators. The question came up before a Full Bench of this Court in Secretary, RTA, Guntur v. E. Rama Rao, AIR 1991 API 1. The Full Bench held:"when the RTA is dealing with new applications for grant of stage carriage permits, existing operators cannot claim any legal right to file representations or a right for being heard. It may however, be open to them to send whatever representations they may like to send, as a matter of information to the RTA., but this they cannot claim as of right. If any representations are so sent, it is open to the RTA to consider them if there is any thing relevant in the said representations. But the RTA may or may not consider every such representations sent by the existing operators. Nor can the existing operators claim any legal right to be heard before the RTA under any circumstances".

(5) THEREAFTER, the matter came before the Supreme Court in Mitihilesh Garg v. Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 443 [LQ/SC/1991/633] . It was pointed out in that case that when petitioner, who is a permit holder and an existing operator is carrying on his business and is fully enjoying his fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India, it is not open for him to challenge the action of authorities in considering the applications of new operators. It was pointed out that the petitioners who were already in the business wanted to keep fresh entrants out of it in order to eliminate the healthy competition. In Para 9 of the said judgment it was stated that there was no justification for petitioners to complain against the policy of grant of new permits under the Act. In other words, the locus of an existing operator to challenge the action of authorities in considering or granting of permits to new entrants was to upheld. This Court again in P. Rehana Begum v. Joint Transport Commissioner and Secretary, 1996 (4) ALD 1197, speaking through a learned single Judge specifically held that existing operator has no right to oppose the grant of State Carriage Permit to prospective entrant. It was repeated that the RTA is not obliged to consider the representations of the existing operator though it may in its discretion consider any facts brought to its notice in a representation by an existing operator. The same view was affirmed by another learned single Judge in Gopal Shankar v. Secretary, State Transport Authority, 1996 (4) ALD 1197.

(6) FROM the aforesaid judgments, it will be clear that an existing operator does not have any locus to challenge the respondents action in considering or granting new permits to new operators. In fact the principle has been first enunciated in Jash Bai Desai v. Roshan Kumar, 1997 (3) ALD 632. [LQ/TelHC/1997/295] The Court speaking through Honble Justice Sri Sarkaria observed:"in the light of the above discussion, it is demonstrably clear that the appellant has not been denied deprived of the legal right. He has not sustained injury to any legally protected interest. In fact, the impugned order does not operate as a decision against him, much less does it wrongfully affect his title to something. He has not been subjected to a legal wrong. He has suffered no legal grievance. He has no legal peg for a justifiable claim to hang on. . . . .".

(7) IT will be seen from these observations that unless the petitioner can claim that some legal right of his has been violated, either fundamental or statutory, it is not open for the petitioner to come before the Court and make a grievance. In the present case there is no complaint or averment any where in the writ petition that any fundamental or statutory right of petitioner has been violated or has even been threatened. The true object of filing the writ petition is adequately betrayed in the averment in affidavit in Para 13 where it is stated:"on account of the inaction and failure to exercise jurisdiction, I am put to grave and irreparable loss."

(8) THUS it is obvious anxiety of the petitioner to safeguard his monetary interest that the petitioner has rushed to this Court. The true purpose in filing the writ petition is discernable and it is to stop the new operators from coming in the field as competitors. The petitioner is already in the business and he evidently desires that fresh entrants by some means or other be eliminated from competing with him to secure their own monetary welfare and stability. I am of the view that the objection taken by respondents 4 to 7 about maintainability of such type of writ petitions has to be upheld. The writ petition has to fail on the ground that petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the action of granting new permits to the respondent Nos. 4 to 7.

(9) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner tried to contend that he is not challenging the grant of permit as such but, his case was that the permits granted were void and therefore, respondent No. 1 should take action as respondent Nos. 4 to 7 were plying without a lawful permit. The argument made, looks attractive but the underlying object is nothing but to challenge the grant of permits to respondent Nos. 4 to 7. Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 have been issued permits is not disputed. What is contended is that the said permit is inoperative. Meaning thereby the challenge is to the permit issued. As pointed out already, no right of the petitioner has been affected by grant of such permit and hence the ratio of the cases referred above, fully applies.

(10) IN view of the above conclusion, it is not necessary to go into the facts as to whether the route on which the respondents are permitted to ply their buses is or is not an enclave route. Moreover, that is a question of fact. While respondents contend that they are only passing on periphery of Andhra Pradesh and that they are not stopping in Andhra Pradesh, this is disputed by the petitioner. Petitioners contention is that the point of stop is in V. Kota in Andhra Pradesh. These are questions of fact and cannot be agitated in writ petition.

(11) THE question of counter-signature by the Andhra Pradesh authorities or payment of tax to the Andhra Pradesh State does not affect any of the statutory right of the petitioner. The Andhra Pradesh State-authorities undoubtedly will take recourse to seek their remedies. The petitioner has done his job by pointing out the alleged irregularities to the notice of respondent No. 1. As pointed out in the Full Bench case, Secretary, RTA. , Guntur case (supra), the petitioner at the best can make a representation but has no right that the said representation must be considered by the authorities. It is in the discretion of the authorities to consider such representation and proceed in accordance with law.

(12) A faint argument is advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the writ is in public interest because there is loss of tax to the State of Andhra Pradesh. This argument has to be stated for purposes of rejection only. I have pointed out already as to what is the true purpose of the litigation. It is impossible by any stretch of imagination to say that this is a public interest litigation. The petitioner is trying to safeguard his own monetary interest and does not have any public interest at his heart.

(13) THE second contention raised by respondent Nos. 4 to 7 is also substantial. The petitioner has no where in his affidavit, in support of the writ petition, stated that he has filed a writ petition in Karnataka High Court already for taking exception to the grant of permit to respondent Nos. 4 to 7. He has also not pointed out that another writ petition filed by Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) was infact dismissed wherein similar points were raised. It is argued that the Andhra Pradesh State was not a party to the said writ petition and therefore, the writ petition pending in the Karnataka High Court does not cover the whole ground which is urged in the present writ petition. This is nothing but trying to defend the undefendable action of suppression. The respondents have filed the order sheet copy of the High Court of Karnataka in respect of the writ petition filed by the petitioner. It shows that the writ petition was filed for obtaining declaration that grant of permits to present respondent Nos. 4 to 7 were not within the second proviso of Section 88 (1) of the New Act and that the said permits were required to be counter-signed by the State Transport Authority, Andhra Pradesh. It will thus be seen that a specific point has been raised by petitioner in Karnataka High Court also, regarding the necessity of obtaining counter-signature from Andhra Pradesh State and therefore has challenged grant of permits by filing WP No. 6965-68 of 1999. It is thus clear that the petitioner has undoubtedly tried to suppress that he has filed a writ petition which is pending in the Karntaka High Court where the points urged here are subject-matter of determination. This ground is sufficient for not considering the writ petition. The Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India exercises discretionary jurisdiction and a party which suppresses material facts cannot expect to get a relief from the Court.

(14) IN this view of the matter, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed but in the circumstances without any order as to costs. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.