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

2022 Supreme(Mad) 2563

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, JJ.
The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Tiruppur & Another - Appellant
Versus
M/s. Easy Ride Transports, Represented by its Managing Partner, M. Jagannathan - Respondent
W.A.No. 1673 of 2022
Decided On : 16-08-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellants:P. Muthukumar, State Government Pleader Assisted by K.M.D. Muhilan, Government Advocate. For the Respondent:M. Palani, Advocate.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that if there is an alternative remedy available under a statute, a writ petition should not be entertained, except in very rare cases if there is some compelling reason.

Headnote:

Writ Appeal - Maintainability of Writ Petition - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 89/90 - The court held that the Writ Petition was not maintainable as there is an efficacious alternative remedy and also for non-joinder of necessary parties. The appeal was allowed with liberty to the respondent to pursue the remedy of appeal, if it chooses to do so, in accordance with law.

Fact of the Case:

The Writ Appeal was filed against the judgment of the learned Judge, dated 16.11.2021, in which the Writ Petition, filed by the respondent, was allowed by quashing the order impugned in the Writ Petition, dated 18.07.2020 and remitting the matter back to the appellants for reconsideration.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Writ Petition itself was not maintainable as there is an efficacious alternative remedy and also for non-joinder of necessary parties.

Issues: The main issue was the maintainability of the Writ Petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that if there is a specific remedy available under a statute, a writ petition should not be entertained. It also emphasized that no writ petition should ordinarily be entertained when there is an alternative remedy, except in very rare cases if there is some compelling reason.

Final Decision: The Writ Appeal was allowed, and the Writ Petition was held to be not maintainable. The appeal was dismissed with liberty to the respondent to pursue the remedy of appeal, if it chooses to do so, in accordance with law.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the order, dated 16.11.2021 made in W.P.No.16897 of 2021 and allow this Writ Appeal.)

D. Bharatha Chakravarhy, J.

The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Tiruppur Region North, Tiruppur and the Regional Transport Authority, Tiruppur District, Tiruppur, being the only respondents in W.P.No.16897 of 2021, have preferred this Writ Appeal against the judgment of the learned Judge, dated 16.11.2021, in and by which, the Writ Petition, filed by the respondent herein, was allowed by quashing the order impugned in the Writ Petition, dated 18.07.2020 and remitting the matter back to the appellants herein for reconsideration in accordance with the factual and legal position rendered by the learned Judge for grant of variation in the permit i.e., to grant extension upto Coimbatore Gandhipuram Bus Stand as sought for in the application of the respondent.

2. At the outset, we find that the Writ Petition itself is not maintainable. It is seen from the facts of this case that an application was made by the respondent herein on 04.12.2008 for extension of the route of the respondent from Coimbatore Lakshmi Mills to Coimbatore Gandhipuram Bus stand in respect of its Stage Carriage, bearing registration No.TN25 AD 2735 plying on the route Tiruppur to Coimbatore Lakshmi Mills so as to operate on the route Tiruppur Old Bus stand to Coimbatore Gandhipuram Bus Stand. In this regard, it is seen from the records that by an order, dated 29.04.2019 in W.P.No.11450 of 2019 filed by the first respondent herein, this Court had ordered as follows:-

“In view of the above submission, this Court is directed to consider the application of the petitioner, dated 04.12.2008, as per the direction of this Court in W.P.No.29629 of 2016, dated 26.09.2016, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the second respondent has to pass orders in the light of the orders passed in W.P.No.12758 of 2003, dated 24.04.2003.””

3. However, once again, the present Writ Petition was filed in August, 2021 with the following prayer:-

“For the reasons stated above, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Order of Direction in the nature of Writ directing the 2nd respondent to pass order on the application for variation of the petitioner dated 04.12.2008 in respect of the vehicle bearing Regn.No.TN 39 BE 0555 since replaced by TN25 AD 2735 plying on the route Tirupur to Coimbatore Lakshmi mills so as to operate in between Tiruppur old bus stand and Coimbatore Gandhipuram bus stand, in the light of the order of this Hon’ble Court, made in W.P.No.11450 of 2019, dated 29.04.2019, and thus render justice.””

Thus, on the face of it, repeated mandamus sought for in respect of the same prayer, the writ petition not maintainable.

4. Be that as it may, when the Writ Petition came up for admission on 06.09.2021, it was brought to the notice of the Court by the appellants herein that already, an order was passed on the application by rejecting the same on 18.07.2020 itself. Upon such representation, the respondent herein sought time to amend the prayer and filed W.M.P.No.21186 of 2021, thereby, amending the relief prayed for in the Writ Petition, which was also granted by this Court, which is as follows:-

“For the reasons stated above, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or any other appropriate Writor Order or Direction in the nature of Writ 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 2nd 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 C

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
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top