Back
1997 Supreme(Mad) 81
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.A. SWAMI AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KANAKARAJ
Cheran Transport Corporation Limited, Coimbatore and Another - Appellant
Versus
Tvl. Sri Marappa Bus Transports, Erode and Others - Respondents
W.Ps. Nos. 9734 and 11581/94
Decided On : 27 January 1997
The Regional Transport Authority has the power to grant variation of a permit beyond 24 kilometers under Section 57(8) of the old Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, when the application is made under that provision.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - VARIATION OF PERMIT - JURISDICTION OF REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY - VALIDITY OF VARIATION ORDER - INTERPRETATION OF TAMIL NADU ACT 41 OF 1992 - SAVING OF ORDERS GRANTING VARIATION - POWER OF REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY TO GRANT VARIATION BEYOND 24 KILOMETRES - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 57(8) AND SECTION 48(3)(XXI) OF THE OLD ACT.
Fact of the Case:
The first respondent, a stage carriage operator, applied for variation of his permit to reduce two singles between Erode and Kambuliyampatti and extend the route from Avinashi to Coimbatore. The second respondent granted the variation subject to concurrence of the Regional Transport Authority, Coimbatore, and waiver of excess kilometerage by the Transport Commissioner. The petitioners, sector operators, challenged the variation order.
Finding of the Court:
The Tribunal held that the variation order was valid and saved by Tamil Nadu Act 41 of 1992, and that the Regional Transport Authority had the power to grant variation beyond 24 kilometers under Section 57(8) of the old Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the variation order was contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pandiyan Roadways Corporation Limited v. Thiru M. A. Egappan and whether it was saved by Tamil Nadu Act 41 of 1992? 2. Whether the Regional Transport Authority had the jurisdiction to grant variation beyond 24 kilometers?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The variation order was passed on 29-6-1989, within the period stated in Section 10 of Act 41 of 1992, and was therefore saved by the Act. 2. The Regional Transport Authority had the power to grant variation beyond 24 kilometers under Section 57(8) of the old Act, as the application was made under that provision.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed.
KANAKARAJ, J.
These two writ petitions arise out of a common order passed by the third respondent on 29-4-1994. The first respondent is a stage carriage operator on the Erode to Kambuliyampatti, with independent singles between Erodo and Avinashi. It is an interdietricts route which lies partly in Periyar District and partly in Coimbatore District. The first respondent has made an application before the second respondent, seeking variation of the permit in respect of his stage carriage, both for reduction of two singles between Erode to Kambuliyampatti and extension of the route from Avinashi to Coimbatore. The said application for variation was made under the repealed Motor Vehicles Act 1939 and, as required under Section 57(3) of the said Act, it was notified calling for representations from various sector operators. The petitioners in those two writ petitions had also filed their objections. The second respondent took up the application for variation and passed orders on 29-6-1989 and the operative of the order was as follows :-
'Variation allowed subject to Concurrence of the Regional Transport Authority, Coimbatore and subject to waiver of excess Kilomaterage by Transport Commissioner, Madras.'
After the order of variation was passed on 29-6-1989 the second respondent had addressed the Transport Commissioner for waiver of excess Kilometerage and also the complementary authority namely, the Regional Transport Authority Coimbatore, for concurrence. It may be noticed here, that by an order dated 5-3-1993, the excess Kilometorage was waived and by an order dated 3-7-1989 the Regional Transport Authority Coimbatore had granted concurrence.
2. In the meanwhile the second respondent seems to have filed an application for withdrawing the request for variation. On the said application for withdrawal, the second respondent is said to have passed an order on 18-7-1989 cancelling the variation. This order of cancellation dated 18-7-1989 was challenged before the Tribunal and the Tribunal set aside the order of cancellation as being without jurisdiction. In other words, the original order of variation dated 29-6-1989 was dircted to be revived. The petitioners in W.P. No. 11581 of 1994 filed a Writ Petition No. 18542 of 1992 to quash the order of the Tribunal setting aside the order of cancellation dated 18-7-1989. Srinivasan, J. directed a remand of the case to the Tribunal because opportunity was not given to the objectors. As against the said order of Srinivasan, J. a Writ Appeal No. 520 of 1993 was filed. The Division Bench allowed the Writ appeal with the following directions :-
'Consequently, the Writ Appeal is allowed and the order of the learned single Judge dated 26-2-1992 in W.P. No. 18542 of 1992 is set aside. The application dated 18-7-1989 filed by the appellant is also dismissed as withdrawn. The order dated 18-7-1989 passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Periyar District at Erode, is also quashed. We, however, make it clear that this order shall not have any effect on the contentions of the parties nor shall it have any bearing on the proceedings initiated by way of application dated 24-6-1988 by the appellant. The parties are at liberty to raise their contentions.'
Their Lordships further ordered as follows :
"The result of the withdrawal of the application dated 18-7-1989 is that the earlier application dated 24-6-1988 filed by the appellant for grant of variation will remain on the file and it will have to be considered in accordance with law, if it has not been so far considered." *
3. In W.P. No. 307 of 1992, the second respondent sought for a direction to implement the variation dated 29-6-1989. After the order of the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 520 of 1993, the petitioners obtained copies of the order of variation dated 29-6-1989 and filed appeals before the third respondent. These appeals were disposed of by the third repondent by the impugned order dated 29-4-1994.
4. Before the third respondent
