O R D E R

The petitioner corporation has filed this writ petition assailing the order dated 12.01.2010 passed by State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, directing 2nd respondent to grant stage carriage permit to 1st respondent herein for plying bus service in the route from Paramakudi to Madurai.

2. This writ petition arises out of a half century old litigation.

Originally the predecessor of 1st respondent namely one Naina Mohamed, was granted permit to ply the stage carriage from Paramakudi to Madurai. The said order was challenged by one K.A.Natarajan, the predecessor of 3rd respondent herein, before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and the said appeal was allowed by order dated 18.07.1967 and permit was granted to said K.A.Natarajan. The said order was assailed by above said Naina Mohamed in W.P.No.2278 of 1967 before this Court. By virtue of interim order passed in C.M.P.No.9852 of 1967, both Naina Mohamed (predecessor of 1st respondent) and K.A.Natarajan (Predecessor of 3rd respondent) were allowed to ply their buses on the above said route. Ultimately, this Court by order dated 18.07.1967 set aside the order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and confirmed the order passed by the 2nd respondent herein, whereunder permit was granted to Naina Mohamed.

3. The order passed in the writ petition was challenged by K.A.Natarajan in Writ Appeal No.519 of 1969 and the same was allowed. The order passed in writ Appeal was challenged by above said Naina Mohamed before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.98 of 1975. The Hon'ble Apex Court by order dated 23.07.1975 set aside the order passed in writ appeal and remanded the matter back to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal with direction to hear the case afresh, consider the relevant factors having bearing upon public interest as highlighted under Section 47 of Motor Vehicles Act and dispose of the same. The Hon'ble Apex Court also directed maintenance of status quo pending appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. Thereafter, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal ( hereinafter referred as STAT) had taken up the appeal afresh and dismissed the appeal on sole ground that draft scheme was published in the meantime and hence the appeal was not maintainable. The said order was questioned by K.A.Natarajan, in C.R.P.No.2553 of 1976 before this Court and the Revision was allowed directing the State Transport Appellate Tribunal to rehear the appeal and decide it on merits. Thereafter, the appeal was taken up by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and the same was allowed on 02.02.1979 and consequently the order granting permit to Naina Mohamed was set aside and permit was granted to K.A.Natarajan. The said order was challenged by the Naina Mohamed in C.R.P.No.1122 of 1979 before this Court. The said C.R.P. was allowed on 25.11.1981 by setting aside the order passed by STAT and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration. It was also observed in the said order that appeal should be kept pending till the finalization of the scheme. Both Naina Mohamed and K.A.Natarajan were permitted to continue the transport operations during the pendency of the appeal.

4. Thereafter, the Tamilnadu Motor Vehicles Act 41 of 1992 came into force on 31.07.1992 and the permits which were granted during the period from 04.06.1976 to 30.06.1990 had been validated. The Government also published approved modified District Area Scheme for Sivaganga, Ramanathapuram and Madurai Districts with provision to continue the operation by private operators, who were already operating services, and protected by Act 42 of 1992. In these circumstances, the 1st respondent filed an application before the 2nd respondent for grant of pucca permit to him and the same was rejected by 2nd respondent 17.07.2001. Assailing the said order, the 1st respondent filed a Revision Petition in C.R.P.No.58 of 2001 before STAT. The Motor Vehicle Appeal No.2060 of 1966 filed by K.A.Natarajan (predeces