SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(Mad) 102

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. MANIKUMAR
A. S. Balakrishnan
Versus
State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Chennai and Another
W.P. No. 19070 of 2003
Decided On : 08-01-2008

Advocates Appeared:
V. Sanjeevi, for Petitioner.
A. Arumugam, Additional Government Pleader for Respondents.

In the matter of suspension of permit for plying vehicles, interference by High Court is not warranted.

Headnote:Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Sections 60(1), 86, 86(1) and 89 (1) (b)-Suspension of permit-violation of conditions of permit-violation of conditions of permit-in such cases examination of witnesses not be claimed, because suspension of permit is not a major penalty-no interference required.

Judgment :

The petitioner has sought a Writ of Certiorari to quash the proceedings of the second respondent passed in proceedings in R. No. A3/19512/97, dated 12.3.2001, as modified in the judgment of the first respondent, dated 9.4.2003 made in Appeal No. 295/2001-A4.

2. Brief facts leading to the writ petition are as follows:

On 5.3.1997, at 9.32 A.M., near Kalpana Theatre, Salem, the Motor Vehicles Inspector, Grade I has intercepted petitioners vehicle bearing Registration No. TN-27-C-9414 and noticed certain irregularities stated below, for which, a show cause notice dated 25.3.1997 was issued to the petitioner, calling upon him to explain, as to why, his permit of stage carriage should not be suspended or cancelled under Section 86(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The petitioner was called upon to explain for the following irregularities were noted:

“(i) As per the permit, the vehicle has to ply from Salem V. Market to Chinthamaniyur via., Collector office, Vincent Balamandir, RTOs Office, Lakshmi Vilas N.S.Shed, Rajendra Choultry Pallapatti, Leigh Bazaar 3 roads, Meyyanur 5 roads junction Reddipatty, At the time of check, the vehicle was found plying from Omalur, Salem V. Market via junction five three roads, Palla patty 4 roads National hotel and Kalpana theatre instead of plying four roads, Balamanindir, Vincent. Thus, the vehicle was plying on the route not authorised route.

(ii) Registration certificate, Insurance Certificate, permit, tax token, Driving licence and Conductor licence were not produced for check.”

3. The petitioner has submitted his explanation dated 5.5.1997, contending inter alia that on 11.3.1997, near Mythila Lodge at about 9.15 a.m., there was heavy traffic congestion due to breakdown of Tractor with Trailers on the middle of the road and the passengers in the bus urged and forced his crew to take reverse, and go to the town on the shorter course of the route via., Kalpana Theatre. There being no other alternative, the crew went to Salem Town via four roads and Kalpana Theatre to maintain timings. The petitioner has further submitted in his explanation that at the time of check, records such as Registration Certificate, Insurance Certificate and Driving Licence were submitted to the National Insurances Office, Salem for verification for the claim and requested the respondents to provide an opportunity of personal hearing to explain in person. It is further submitted that without considering the explanation in proper perspective and without providing an opportunity of personal hearing, an order of suspension, dated 13.4.1998, was passed suspending the permit for a period of 30 days with option to compound the offence by paying a sum of Rs. 9,000/- in lieu of suspension. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed a statutory appeal in Appeal No. 468/98/A4 under Section 89(l)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Chennai by order dated 27.6.2000 set aside the order of suspension and remitted the matter back to the second respondent, i. e., Regional Transport Authority for disposal, in accordance with law, on the ground that the order of suspension was not passed by the competent authority, viz., Regional Transport Authority. Thereafter, the second respondent has passed an order dated 12.3.2001, suspending the permit in respect of the vehicle bearing Registration No. TN 27 E 9414 for a period of 30 days with option to compound at Rs. 300/- per day.

4. The petitioner has further submitted that the second respondent has not at all considered the explanation of the petitioner and passed the order of suspension, erroneously and in an arbitrary manner. Again, the petitioner has preferred a statutory appeal under Section 89(1)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on the file of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Chennai and by order dated 9.4.2003, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in part reducing the suspension for a period of 10 days with option to comp

































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top