IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Reserved on 05.08.2022 Pronounced on 09.11.2022 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA C.R.P.No.907 of 2022 and C.M.P.No.1600 & 1690 of 2022 A.M.Vijayammal ... Petitioner Vs.

1. State Transport Authority, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005. ... first respondent

2. Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation, (Villupuram Division III) Limited, Kancheepuram. ... objector/

second Respondent Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the order of the learned State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Chennai in M.V.Appl.No.01/2021 dated 14.12.2021.

For Petitioner : Mrs.S.Radha Gopalan for Mr.K.Hariharan For Respondent-1 : Mr. E.Vijay Anand Additional Government Pleader

2: Mr. K.J.Sivakumar

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been preferred challenging the order of the learned State Transport Appellate Tribunal dated 14.12.2021 made in M.V.

Appeal No.1 of 2021.

2. The above appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the Tribunal against the order of the first respondent / State Transport Authority made in proceedings in R.No.E3/67141/2008 dated 30.11.2020 rejecting the application for counter signature for the variation granted by the State Transport Authority, Andhra Pradesh at erstwhile Hyderabad, now at Vijayawada in respect of the vehicle bearing Reg. No.TN-73-Z-2907 since replaced by TN-23-AZ-9707 plying on the route 'Tirupati' to 'Arakkonam'. And the Appeal was dismissed by confirming the order of the State Transport Authority. Aggrieved over the same, this Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

3. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of this petition are as follows:

The petitioner is an inter-state operator operating her stage carriage TN-

73-Z-2907 lastly replaced by TN-23-AZ-9707 plying on the inter-state route Tirupati to Arakkonam via Renigunta, Puttur, Nagari, and Tirutanni and the vehicle is permitted to do five singles on the route as per the inter-state agreement and these five singles alone have been countersigned by the first respondent periodically. The petitioner was granted with one additional vehicle in the same route by the primary authority (i.e) State Transport Authority, Hyderabad, involving variations to include one more vehicle with two additional singles on the very same permit. The State Transport Authority, Hyderabad granted the request outside the purview of inter-state agreement on double point tax vide proceedings in R.No.12649/E1/84 dated 25.06.1985.

3.1. Consequent to the variation granted by the primary authority, the petitioner approached the first respondent for grant of countersignature of the said variation. The petitioner had also filed a Writ Petition in W.P. No.14038 of 1989 and got a direction on 06.03.1990 to consider the application. On consideration, the countersignature for variation of permit was rejected by the first respondent.

3.2 Aggrieved by the order of rejection, the petitioner filed an application before the Tribunal in M.V. No.194/1990 and the Tribunal by its order dated

05.12.1990 allowed the appeal with a direction to grant variation.

3.3. The objector / Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Kancheepuram has filed a Writ Appeal in W.A. No.1675/2000 and challenged the order of the Tribunal. This Court vide its order dated 16.10.2006 made in W.A. No.1675 of 2000, set aside the order of the Tribunal with an observation that granting of countersignature on the basis of the orders of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Chennai is illegal.

3.4 Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed a Special Leave Petition in SLP No.18958/2006. Vide an interim order dated 27.11.2006, status quo was ordered till the decision of the Constitutional Bench in C.A. No.4480/1998 and batch. In the meanwhile, the State Transport Authority, Andhra Pradesh has renewed basic permit for a further period of five years from 31.12.2008 to 30.12.2013 in respect of vehicle bearing Reg. No.TN-23- S-9000 and permitted it to