Proper consideration of statutory conditions and vital aspects of permit ownership is crucial in decisions regarding permit cancellation and renewal under the Motor Vehicle Act.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed in M.V.Appeal No.46/2021, dated 16.12.2021 by the State Appellate Tribunal Chennai and set aside the same and subsequently direct the respondent to renew the permit of petitioner's mini bus bearing Registration No.TN-45-N-0126.

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed in M.V.Appeal No.47/2021, dated 16.12.2021 by the State Appellate Tribunal Chennai and set aside the same and subsequently direct the respondent to renew the permit of petitioner's mini bus bearing Registration No.TN-59-N-0299.)

Common Order:

1. The petitioner is the owner of two mini buses bearing Registration Nos. TN-45-N-0126 and TN-59-N-0299. The Regional Transport Authority, by order, dated 31.01.2017 cancelled the permit for two mini buses under Section 86 (1) (C) of the Motor Vehicle Act, against which, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in M.V.Nos.46 and 47 of 2021. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, by order, dated 16.12.2021 dismissed both the appeals confirming the order passed by the Regional Transport Authority in Proceedings Nos.74015/A2/2016 and 67282/A2/2016, dated 31.01.2017.

2. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner involved in Transport business for the past several years. The petitioner has two mini buses bearing Registration Nos.TN-45-N-0126 and TN-59-N-0299 and obtained permit to run the aforesaid mini buses from Kalakkad( Meera Theathre) to Melasadayamaankulam in Thirunelveli District. The bus permit numbers are 42/MB/2005 and 14/MB/2005. The permit for mini buses bearing Registration Nos.TN-45-N-0126 and TN-59-N-0299 was lastly renewed from 14.12.2016 to 01.02.2021 and 14.12.2015 to 13.12.2020 respectively. The Regional Transport Officer Sent memo to the petitioner on 26.12.2016 calling for explanation within a week based on the representation made on behalf of the villagers. The Regional Transport Authority on the representation directed the petitioner to appear before him and give his explanation, which was not considered. Later, the Regional Transport Authority in his proceedings, dated 31.01.2017 cancelled the permit under Section 86 (1) (C) of the Motor Vehicle Act. He further submitted that the petitioner was ready to pay the compounding fee under Section 86 (5) of the Motor Vehicle Act read with Rule 206 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicle Rules. This was not considered and permit cancelled arbitrarily against which the petitioner preferred an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The Registration Certificate and all the records still stands in the name of the petitioner. Further, the public complaint is that in violation of Rules, extra charges collected and routes violated cannot be considered. The representation is bald enough without particulars, the violation of route, its timings and mini bus number not provided. The complaint does not pertain to the petitioner or no allegations made against the petitioner. The general public seek facility of mini bus service and nothing more.

3. The State Transport Appellate in his order states to one A.Essac, S/o Arumugam the petitioner sold the mini buses. There is nothing on record to show that A.Essac was enquired to confirm the allegations. Further, the complaint made by the public seeks only service of mini buses, nothing more. The allegation of the petitioner is that the petitioner was charging exorbitant charges and plying in un-authorised route. The provisions under Section 86 (5) of the Motor Vehicles Act not followed. On the contrary, straight away cancelling the permit is not proper. Further, the petitioner being an uneducated person, his signature