Court established that operators holding valid permits can seek variations under Section 6(2) of the Tamil Nadu Act, which allows them to adjust frequencies on existing routes despite distance limitations.

ORDER :

1. The revision petitioners are bus service operators, who seek to set aside the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, in M.V.App.Nos.23 & 24 of 2020, respectively, confirming the order of the Regional Transport Authority, Dharmapuri, dated 27.02.2020.

2. I have heard Mr.M.Palani, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Mr.V.Ramesh, learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.K.Kathiresan, learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent in both the revision petitions.

3. Mr.M.Palani, learned counsel for the petitioners would state that the petitioners admittedly hold valid permits to ply between Dharmapuri and Attipalli (CRP.No.150 of 2022) and Salem and Krishnagiri (CRP.No.151 of 2022). The petitioners have applied for additional singles in the existing route, which has been denied by the Regional Transport Authority, by proceedings held on 19-12-1989, citing the reasons that the route is already over-saturated. The petitioners have applied for additional singles in the existing route, which has been denied by the Regional Transport Authority by proceedings held on 19-12-1989, citing Rule 4(4) of the Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Rules, 1995, which provides for variation of conditions of permit, which is to be sought for by way of an application in the prescribed form to the Regional State Transport Authority or the State Transport Authority, accompanied by a prescribed fee. Sub-Rules 2 and 3 deal with the manner in which such application has to be dealt with by the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority as the case may be. Sub-rule 4 empowers the authority, after recording reasons, to either grant or refuse variation, sought for. The first proviso deals with the variation being limited to a distance not exceeding 24 kilometers.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners would therefore state that in the case of the petitioners, the proviso limiting the distance to 24 kilometers will not even apply in the first place, as according to learned counsel, Section 6 (2) of Act 41 of 1992 permits the transport authority to enable a small operator to seek for varying conditions of a permit for stage carriage, so as to enable the applicant to operate on the entire route or any portion of the route covered by such approved scheme.

5. Relying on the above provision, Mr.M.Palani, learned counsel contends that admittedly, when the petitioners are having valid permits, they are well within the right to seek variance and it is not a case falling under Section 6 (4), which deals with only new permits not being granted to any person, on any route already covered by an approved scheme. In support of the submissions, Mr.M.Palani has relied on the decisions of this Court rendered in the context of Tamil Nadu Act 41 of 1992, which supports the petitioners case, reported in M/s. Easy Ride Transports vs. The Regional Transport Authority, Tiruppur in CRP (NPD) No. 3134 of 2023 and K. Vaiapuri vs. The Regional Transport Authority, Namakkal District, 2012 (5) CTC 729 and Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Limited vs. Union of India and others, 2025 (1) SCC 695.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners therefore state that the authorities, as well as the Tribunal have committed an error in falling back on the ratio laid down by the Constitution Bench, without noticing that the said decision was only answering