Back
2021 Supreme(Mad) 1657
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. CHANDRASEKHARAN, J.
N. Henry - Petitioner
Versus
Regional Transport Officer/Authority, Marthandam, Kanyakumari & Others - Respondents
C.R.P.(NPD) Nos. 539 & 540 of 2021
Decided On : 07-10-2021
For the Petitioner:R. Kannan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Dr. S. Suriya, Government Advocate.
Headnote:
Constitution of India,1950 – Article 227 - Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Act 1992 - Section 6(4) and 7 - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 103(2)(a) - Carriage permit - Transport Corporation - Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that there is no public transport available in routes for which petitioner sought stage carriage permit - In fact, Writ Petitions in this regard were filed and Writ Petitions were disposed giving direction to transport authority to consider request and pass orders - Either Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation should ply vehicles in these routes to help public for easy commutation or allow private operators to ply the buses - However, the respondent Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation has not chosen to either ply buses in these routes or allow the private operators to ply buses – Held, Considered submissions and perused records - Perusal of the records shows that applications filed by the petitioner were rejected on ground that there is no provision for grant of permit to petitioner under Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Act 1992 - In fact, grant of permit to private operators is prohibited under the Act - Combined reading of these provisions make it clear that new permit cannot be granted on a notified area - It is also found that the permit was granted to Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation to ply vehicles in all the mofussil routes - Learned Transport Appellate Tribunal has considered all these aspects and rightly dismissed appeals filed by the petitioner - This Court finds no reason to interfere with orders of learned Transport Appellate Tribunal and orders of learned State Transport Appellate Authority, Chennai passed in M.V. Appeal are confirmed and these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: C.R.P.(NPD) No.539 of 2021 is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order dated 02.01.2019 passed in M.V.Appeal No.177 of 2015 on the file of State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, confirming the order of the respondent in R.No.37010/A3/14 dated 06.11.2015 rejecting the application dated 29.07.2015 for grant of stage carriage permit.
C.R.P.(NPD) No.540 of 2021 is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order dated 02.01.2019 passed in M.V.Appeal No.18 of 2015 on the file of State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, confirming the order of the respondent in R.No.37010/B1/14 dated 14.11.2014 rejecting the application dated 21.01.2011 for grant of stage carriage permit.)
1. C.R.P.(NPD) No.539 of 2021 is filed challenging the order passed in MV Appeal No.117 of 2015 on the file of State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, confirming the order of first respondent in R.No.37010/A3/14 dated 06.11.2015 rejecting the application dated 29.07.2015 for grant of stage carriage permit.
2. C.R.P.(NPD) No.540 of 2021 is filed challenging the order passed in MV Appeal No.18 of 2015 on the file of State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, confirming the order of first respondent in R.No.37010/B1/14 dated 14.11.2014 rejecting the application dated 21.01.2011 for grant of stage carriage permit.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner submitted applications dated 21.01.2011 and 29.07.2015 for grant of stage carriage permit. In the application dated 21.01.2011 he requested the grant of stage carriage permit in the route from Nagercoil (Meenakshipuram) to Thothoor (via Parvathipuram, Thuckalay-thuckalay, kaliyakkavillai, Kozhivillai Villakku, Mangadu, Kanchanpuram and Nithiravilai). In application dated 29.07.2015, he requested grant of stage carriage permit in the route from Nagercoil (Meenakshipuram) to Thothoor (via Parvathipuram, Thuckalay-Thoduvatti, Kaliyakkavillai, Kozhivillai Vilakku, Thaiyamudu, Konacheri, Sriacodu and Nampali). These applications came to be rejected by the Regional Transport Authority on 14.11.2014 and 06.11.2015 respectively. Against the said orders, he preferred MV appeal Nos.18 of 2015 and 177 of 2015. Both appeals were dismissed and therefore, these Civil Revision Petitions are preferred.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no public transport available in the routes for which the petitioner sought stage carriage permit. In fact, Writ Petitions in this regard were filed and Writ Petitions were disposed giving direction to the transport authority to consider the request and pass orders. Either the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation should ply vehicles in these routes to help the public for easy commutation or allow the private operators to ply the buses. However, the respondent Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation has not chosen to either ply buses in these routes or allow the private operators to ply the buses. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for setting aside the order of learned Judge, State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Chennai and for granting permission to the petitioner for plying bus services in these routes.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed these petitions on the ground that as per Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Act 1992, private operators are not permitted to ply the buses and only the State Transport Corporation can ply the buses. In fact, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation is plying buses in all the moffusil routes in Kanyakumari District. The Regional Transport Officer has no power to grant stage carriage permit as per the provisions of new Motor Vehicles Act 41 of 1992. Therefore, the applications filed by the petitioners were rejected.
6. Considered the submissions and perused the records.
7. Perusal of the records shows that the applications filed by the petitioner were rejected on t
