The central legal point established in the judgment is that the rejection of the petitioner's request was justified based on the served sector exceeding the permitted norms as per the relevant government orders and circulars.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order passed by the learned State Transport Appellate Tribunal in M.V.Appeal No.6 of 2020 dated 17.12.2020 confirming the order of the respondent made in R.No.14044/B1/2019 dated 10.01.2020 rejecting the application for permitting the petitioner''s minibus TN-51/E-9873 to go inside the Mayiladuthurai Muncipal Bus Stand and allow this petition.)

1. The present Revision has been filed to set aside the order passed by the learned State Transport Appellate Tribunal in M.V.Appeal No.6 of 2020 dated 17.12.2020 confirming the order of the respondent made in R.No.14044/B1/2019 dated 10.01.2020 rejecting the application for permitting the petitioner''s minibus TN-51/E-9873 to go inside the Mayiladuthurai Muncipal Bus Stand and allow the present Revision.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

The petitioner, who is holding a mini bus permit in respect of the vehicle bearing regn. no.TN 51/E 9873 plying on the route Mayiladuthurai Lakshmi Vilas Bank to Kannianatham, made an application on 23.04.2019 to the respondent seeking to permit the vehicle inside the Mayiladuthurai Municipal bus stand. The said application was rejected based on the report submitted by the field officer on 10.01.2020 vide proceedings in Mu.Aa.No.14044/E1/2019. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner preferred an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Chennai. The appellate authority upon considering the submissions on either side and the relevant documents produced on record, dismissed the appeal. Seeking to reject the said order, the preset Revision has been filed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has produced the photographs to show that in the present terminus, which is situated next to Lakshmi vilas Bank, earlier, there was a open space belonging to a private party and at that place ''Seemati Sarees'' has been opened and in view of the same, the owner of the said building, isnot allowing the petitioner''s bus to stop there and therefore, the petitioner finds it very difficult for the ingress and egress of the passengers. As per the circular of the Transport commissioner, Chennai dated 29.11.2000, the main purpose for touching the bus stand is to serve the rural public to reach the bus stand and the same was not considered by the tribunal.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that the appellate court failed to see that in the orders in W.P.Nos.17103 and 17104 of 2019 dated 22.10.2019 and in W.P.(MD) No.22697 of 2015 dated 16.07.2018, this Court has taken into account the Judgment of the W.A.No.582 of 2008 dated 14.07.2018 and then only, allowed the vehicle to enter the bus stand, therefore, the tribunal ought to have followed the said Judgment and permitted the request of the petitioner to touch the bus stand. Looking at from any angle, the impugned order of the appellate court cannot be supported in law, therefore sought to allow the present Revision.

5. Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioner to substantiate his contention has relied on the following Judgments:-

(i) Judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1969 SC 273 [M/s Standard Motor Union Private Ltd., Vs. The State of Kerala & Others]

(ii) Judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in (1985) 1 SCC 641 [Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Vs. Union of India and Others]

(iii) Judgment of the Andhrapradesh High Court in the case of M.Gangappa Vs. The Govt., of A.P., and others reported in 1975 AIR (A.P.) 138.

(iv) Judgment of High Court of Karnataka [State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Sri Pauli Govis and Annother etc.] reported in 1996 AIR (Karnataka) 247.

6. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that based on the report obtained from the Motor Vehicles Inspector and based