Article 226 maintainability for transport permit disputes turns on alleged illegality or jurisdictional error, not mere commercial rivalry.

Commercial rivalry alone does not bar Article 226 maintainability where an existing stage-carriage operator challenges a fresh permit on grounds of illegality, arbitrariness, lack of jurisdiction, or colourable exercise of power; such a grievance remains justiciable, subject to an efficacious alternative remedy. The same principle applies where permit holders complain that transport authorities have acted unlawfully, or failed to act, in relation to other operators violating the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or the applicable rules and policy guidelines; the High Court may entertain the petition in appropriate cases of statutory violation, again subject to alternative-remedy principles.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether existing stage-carriage operators can maintain a writ petition under Article 226 challenging grant of fresh permits to new operators on the ground that the grant is illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, or a colourable exercise of power, notwithstanding that the challenge is brought by business rivals; (ii) Whether holders of stage or contract-carriage permits can invoke Article 226 to question action or inaction of transport authorities in dealing with complaints regarding other operators plying vehicles in violation of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or the rules or policy guidelines made thereunder.

Issue (i): The earlier view that an existing operator has no standing to question a rival permit grant is confined to challenges aimed only at preventing commercial competition. A challenge founded on illegality, arbitrariness, lack of jurisdiction, or colourable exercise of power is different in substance and remains justiciable, subject to the existence of an efficacious alternative remedy.

Conclusion: Yes. An existing operator may maintain such a writ petition where the grievance is directed against illegality or arbitrariness and not merely against competitive prejudice.

Issue (ii): The same principle governs complaints by permit holders about unlawful action or inaction of transport authorities concerning other operators. Where the complaint is that the statutory scheme has been violated, the High Court may entertain the petition under Article 226, again subject to the availability of an efficacious alternative remedy and subject to the challenge not resting only on commercial rivalry.

Conclusion: Yes. Such applications are maintainable in appropriate cases of statutory violation.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered by holding that commercial rivalry alone does not bar maintainability, but a writ founded on illegality, arbitrariness, or jurisdictional error in grant or administration of permits can be entertained, subject to alternative-remedy principles.

Ratio Decidendi: An existing transport operator is not barred from invoking writ jurisdiction merely because the impugned permit or transport action benefits a rival; the decisive question is whether the challenge alleges a legally cognisable illegality or jurisdictional defect in the statutory action, not mere loss of business.

---