R. Venkata Varada Reddiar & Others vs The State Transport Authority & Others

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2006 Supreme(Mad) 3588

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. SATHASIVAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. TAMILVANAN
R. Venkata Varada Reddiar & Others - Appellant
Versus
The State Transport Authority & Others - Respondents
Writ Appeal Nos. 429 of 2002 & 476 of 2002 W.P. Nos. 8146 of 2002 & 8147 of 2002 & WAMP No. 861 of 2002
Decided On : 22 December 2006

Appearing Advocates: For the Appellants:M. Krishnappan, M.Palani, Advocates. For the Respondents:R1 & R3, K.K. Sashidharan, Spl. Govt. Pleader, (Pondicherry Govt.), R-2, R. Thiyagarajan, SC, T. Arulraj, Advocate.

Headnote:
Interstate Agreement - Motor Vehicles Act - Section 88(1), Section 87(1), Section 89, Section 90 - The court discussed the validity of permits issued in favor of PTDC for the Pondicherry-Villupuram route under the Interstate Agreement and the Motor Vehicles Act. It highlighted the power of Regional Transport Authority to issue permits in respect of Interstate Routes and the conditions for the existence of an interstate route and the necessity of reciprocal agreements between the States covered by the route. The court emphasized the importance of mutual agreement between the States and the need for parity of permits on interstate routes as mentioned in the agreement. It also pointed out that the existence of a route is a condition precedent for the exercise of power under Section 88(1) of the Act and that the permits issued must be in accordance with the Interstate Agreement.
Fact of the Case:

The case involved the grant of permits in favor of PTDC for the Pondicherry-Villupuram route, challenged by private operators on the grounds of illegality and violation of the Interstate Agreement and the Motor Vehicles Act.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the permits issued in favor of PTDC were valid and issued in exercise of the power conferred under the Motor Vehicles Act. It emphasized the importance of the existence of an interstate route and the necessity of reciprocal agreements between the States covered by the route.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the validity of permits issued in favor of PTDC, the interpretation of the Interstate Agreement, and the Motor Vehicles Act, and the power of the Regional Transport Authority to issue permits in respect of Interstate Routes.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the existence of a route is a condition precedent for the exercise of power under Section 88(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act and emphasized the necessity of reciprocal agreements between the States covered by the route for the issuance of permits. It also highlighted the importance of mutual agreement between the States and the need for parity of permits on interstate routes as mentioned in the agreement.
Final Decision: The Writ Appeals and the Writ Petitions were dismissed, and no costs were awarded. The court found that there was no ground to quash the regular permits issued in favor of PTDC and rejected the contrary contentions raised by the private operators.

Judgment :-

(W.A. Nos. 429 & 476 of 2002: Appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent as against the Judgment of the learned single Judge, dated 20.02.2002, made in WP Nos. 17959 & 18401 of 2001.

W.P. Nos. 8146 & 8147/02: Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent pertaining to the order made in Proceeding No. 75442/TD/TP1/Permit/2001 dated 24.08.2001 in granting 2 Interstate permits in favour of the third respondent to ply on the inter-state route Pondicherry to Villupuram via Villianur, Kandamangalam Madagadipet and Valavanur, and quash the same.)

Common Judgment

P. Sathasivam, J.

Since the issue raised in all these matters is one and the same, they are being disposed of by the following common Judgment.

2. a) One R.Venkata Varada Reddiar, petitioner in W.P. No.17959 of 2001, aggrieved by the Common Order of the learned single Judge, dated 20.02.2002, rejecting his request to quash the regular permits issued in favour of the Pondicherry Tourism and Transport Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'PTDC'), has filed Writ Appeal No.429 of 2002.

b) Questioning the very same order of the learned single Judge, one M.Husman, petitioner in W.P. No.18401 of 2001, has filed W.A. No.476 of 2002.

c) Aggrieved by the order of the State Transport Authority, Pondicherry, dated 24.08.2001, granting 2 Interstate Permits in favour of PTDC, one V.Vijayasekaran, Proprietor of M/s.Sri Raman Roadways, Pondicherry, has filed W.P. Nos.8146 and 8147 of 2002.

3. For convenience, we shall refer the case of R.Venkata Varada Reddiar-petitioner in W.P. No.17959 of 2001.

According to him, he is a stage carriage operator, operating three route buses and one spare bus. The permits have been issued by first respondent/the State Transport Authority, Pondicherry. The permits are included in the Interstate Agreement, entered into between the State of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry, published in the gazette dated 19.04.1985.

The first respondent granted two regular stage carriage permits as pucca permits in favour of the 2nd respondent/PTDC, by proceeding dated 24.08.2001. The 2nd respondent was directed to obtain counter-signature from the State Transport Authority, Chennai, for the portion lying in Tamil Nadu and also to operate on Double Point Tax. After obtaining the counter-signature from the State Transport Authority, Chennai, the 2nd respondent produced the vehicles before the first respondent and consequently, the State Transport Authority, Pondicherry, issued necessary permit in respect of two vehicles on tentative timings by proceedings dated 11.09.2001. The petitioner, being an Operator, covering the entire route now being operated by the 2nd respondent, aggrieved against the grant of permit in favour of the second respondent and also by fixing the tentative timings for the operation by the second respondent, challenged the orders of R-1 and R-3, dated 24.08.2001 and 11.09.2001 respectively on the ground that they are illegal, contrary to the provisions of the Act and also against the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ashwani Kumar vs. Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner (1999 (8) SCC 364).

4. The General Manager of the Pondicherry Tourism and Transport Development Corporation, filed a counter affidavit, stating that the Writ Petition is not maintainable since there is an effective remedy available by way of Appeal under Section 89 or Revision under Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The temporary permit already issued under Section 87(1) is valid and cannot be questioned. Further, because of public agitation, the Station House Officer, Thirubhuvanai Police Station, Pondicherry, reported to the Joint secretary (Revenue) cum Additional District Magistrate, Pondicherry, regarding the rush of commuters on Pondicherry-Villupuram route especially collie workers and industrial workers during morning and evening hours, whereupon, immediate

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis