Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SURESH KUMAR, J.
M/s. Easy Ride Transports Represented by its Managing Partner Tiruppur – Appellant
Versus
The Secretary Regional Transport Authority Tiruppur & Another – Respondents
W.P. No. 16897 of 2021 & W.M.P. No. 17882 of 2021
Decided on : 16-11-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 80(3) - Tamil Nadu Act 41 of 1992 – Section 6(4) and 72 - Writ of Certiorari Mandamus - Carriage permit - As per amended prayer, prayer sought for herein is for a Writ of Certiorari Mandamus calling for records of respondent made quash the same and direct second respondent to allow application of petitioner, filed for extension of route from Coimbatore Bus Stand in respect of its stage carriage plying on the route Tirupur to Coimbatore Laxmi Mill so as to operate on route Tirupur Old Bus Stand and Coimbatore Bus Stand - It is case of petitioner that, petitioner firm was operating a stage carriage permit vehicle on route between and Coimbatore Mill - Initially route was a town service operating in between Old Bus Stand - Petitioner made an application for variation involving extension of route from to Coimbatore by converting town service into Moffusil service and grant of additional singles and reduction of singles on the existing route - This application of petitioner was allowed by second respondent by proceedings - While allowing the application, so far as extension is concerned, it was restricted only upto Mill on ground that, extension if at all permitted from Coimbatore ie., upto Coimbatore Bus Stand, it comes to 27 Kms, however in terms of Section 80(3) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, extension can be granted only upto 24 Kms - Extension request was restricted only upto Laxmi Mills because 24 Kms from Karumathampatti ends at Coimbatore Laxmi Mills - Whether existing permit holder will be precluded from making any further application for further variation is a question – Held, State Transport Authority or Regional Transport authority, as the case may be, were empowered to grant variations subject to maximum distance of 24 Kms - It has further been held that, while interpreting Section 6 of Act 41 of 1992, Apex Court upheld validity of the same by approving power of the Regional Transport Authority to grant, renew or vary conditions of permit of small operator, namely, any stage carriage operator holding not more than five stage carriage permits to ply on a notified route or part of it notwithstanding anything contained in the draft scheme - Division Bench found no infirmity in the grant of variation to petitioners in said batch of cases pursuant to Section 6(2) of Act 41 of 1992 - Neither in the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 nor in Act 41 of 1992 is there any provision to show that, any application filed by a small operator seeking variation after lapse of one year from the earlier variation order obtained, can be treated as a fresh application - This writ petition is allowed - With directions, this writ petition is allowed accordingly - Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 2nd respondent made in R.No.032874/A3/2019 dated 18.07.2020 and quash the same and direct the second respondent to allow the application of the petitioner dated 04.12.2008, filed for extension of the route from Coimbatore Laxmi Mill to Coimbatore Gandhipuram Bus Stand in respect of its stage carriage bearing Regn.No.TN25 AD 2735 plying on the route Tirupur to Coimbatore Laxmi Mill so as to operate on the route Tirupur Old Bus Stand to Coimbatore Gandhipuram Bus Stand. (Prayer amended vide order dated 26.10.2021 made in WMP No.21186/2021 in WP No.16897 of 2021 by NAVJ).)
1. As per the amended prayer, the prayer sought for herein is for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 2nd respondent made in R.No.032874/A3/2019 dated 18.07.2020, quash the same and direct the second respondent to allow the application of the petitioner dated 04.12.2008, filed for extension of the route from Coimbatore Laxmi Mill to Coimbatore Gandhipuram Bus Stand in respect of its stage carriage bearing Regn.No.TN25 AD 2735 plying on the route Tirupur to Coimbatore Laxmi Mill so as to operate on the route Tirupur Old Bus Stand and Coimbatore Gandhipuram Bus Stand.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner firm was operating a stage carriage permit vehicle in Regn.No.TN-39-BE-0555 on the route between Tiruppur and Coimbatore Laxmi Mill. Initially the route was a town service operating in between Tiruppur Old Bus Stand to Karumathampatti. In the year 1996, the petitioner made an application for variation involving extension of route from Karumathampatti to Coimbatore by converting the town service into Moffusil service and grant of additional singles and reduction of singles on the existing route.
3. This application of the petitioner was allowed by the second respondent by proceedings dated 05.02.1996. However, while allowing the application, so far as the extension is concerned, it was restricted only upto Laxmi Mill on the ground that, the extension if at all permitted from Karumathampatti to Coimbatore ie., upto Coimbatore Bus Stand, it comes to 27 Kms, however in terms of Section 80(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, extension can be granted only upto 24 Kms. Therefore, the extension request was restricted only upto Laxmi Mills because 24 Kms from Karumathampatti ends at Coimbatore Laxmi Mills. That is how the petitioner, after getting that variation in 1996 has been plying the vehicle in the permit route between Tiruppur Bus Stand to Coimbatore Laxmi Mill.
4. When that being so, the petitioner has made an application in the year 2008 for further variation or extension from Laxmi Mill to Coimbatore Gandhipuram Bus Stand covering 3 Kms. The said application submitted by the petitioner was not considered. Therefore, the petitioner has filed number of writ petitions and every time writ of mandamus were issued to consider the application of the petitioner. However, there has been no fruitful action, according to the petitioner, was forthcoming from the respondents. Ultimately, a writ petition was again filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.11450 of 2019, where a direction was given by this Court on 29.04.2019, directing the Regional Transport Authority, Tiruppur North Region ie., the second respondent herein to consider the request of the petitioner and to pass orders on merits.
5. Accordingly, a date was fixed for hearing by giving notice to all the operators in the said route on 01.11.2019. On that date, though several operators attended the hearing, some of them sought for further adjournment and some of them had made their objections or protest. The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited also appeared in the said hearing before the respondents and they also made a protest saying that, the application since was submitted seeking variation for a
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
