Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 10755
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V.Lakshminarayanan, J
A.Rukmini – Appellant
Versus
Regional Transport Authority, Erode Region, Erode – Respondent
W.P.No.9356 of 2015|W.P.No.9825 of 2015|W.P.No.9826 of 2015|W.P.No.10327 of 2015
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.M.Palani
For the Respondents: Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal Additional Government Pleader, Mr.T.Mohan Senior Counsel for Mr.A.Suresh, Mr.R.Mohan Standing Counsel for Mr.P.Kumaravel, Mr.M.Krishnappa Senior Counsel for Ms.R.Swarnalatha, Mr.R.Rajesh Vivekanandan Deputy Solicitor General
Orders of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal are not deemed judicial decisions and can be challenged through writ petitions under Article 226, as they do not fit the definition of 'Court' under the sovereign system of judiciary.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 89(2) - Writ petitions challenging orders of State Transport Appellate Tribunal (STAT) are maintainable - The court clarified that STAT is not a Court within the sovereign system of courts but a quasi-judicial body, hence amenable to writ jurisdiction. Judgments by STAT do not carry the authority akin to decisions made by traditional courts, as highlighted in various rulings including B.Rajagopala Naidu v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal - The absence of a deeming clause in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, removes the status of STAT as a 'court'. (Paras 49-52)
Findings of Court:
The preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petitions is rejected, reaffirming that only a writ petition can be filed against orders of STAT. (Paras 53-54)
Issues: The primary issue was whether the orders of the STAT are amenable to writ jurisdiction, considering its quasi-judicial status and relationship to the broader judicial framework.
Ratio Decidendi: The distinction between Courts and Tribunals was analyzed, concluding that while both exercise judicial power, only Courts are part of the sovereign judiciary; therefore, the orders of STAT, lacking a constitutional status, can be challenged through writs under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Result: Writ petitions deemed maintainable.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of writ petitions to challenge orders of the tribunal. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. preliminary objections raised against writ petitions. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. submissions regarding tribunal's amenability to writ jurisdiction. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. historical context on judicial decisions and writ maintainability. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. distinction between courts and tribunals, focusing on powers. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 6. jurisdictional scope for high courts under articles 226 and 227. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 7. supervisory powers of the high court regarding tribunals. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 8. history and establishment of the state transport appellate tribunal. (Para 24 , 26 , 28) |
| 9. status and jurisdiction of the state transport appellate tribunal. (Para 46 , 48 , 49) |
| 10. final ruling on maintainability of writ petitions. (Para 53 , 54 , 55) |
COMMON ORDER
These writ petitions challenge the orders passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as STAT) at Chennai.
2.The writ petitions were admitted and rule nisi had been issued. The matters were listed before me for final disposal.
3.When I took the writ petitions for hearing on 04.09.2025, Mr.T.Mohan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents raised a preliminary objection. He relied upon the following orders:
(i)P.Venkatachalam v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal and others, 2022 SCC Online Mad 8080.
(ii)Tvl.Coimbatore Sub Urban Carriers (P) Ltd., v. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, in W.P.No.124 of 2020 dated 06.01.2020 and
(iii)V.Selvi v. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal in W.P.Nos.2058 & 2299 of 2021 dated 10.02.2021
and urged that the writ petitions challenging orders of STAT are not maintainable and that the remedy for a person aggrieved by such an order is only by way of a revision, invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
4.Replying to this preliminary objection, Mr.M.Palani appearing for the petitioners in a few cases responded that the view submitted by Mr.T.Mohan is not the correct position of law. He brought to my notice that the judgment of a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in B.Rajagopala Naidu v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras and others, (1964) 7 SCR 1 and submitted that an order passed by STAT is amenable to writ jurisdiction. He also relied upon a judgment of the Kerala High Court in Valsaraj v. Rajan, 2019 SCC Online Ker 2657. In the said judgment, the Kerala High Court held that STAT is a “persona designata” and therefore, amenable to writ jurisdiction. He also relied upon a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in P.Naveen Chakravarthy v. Punjab National Bank, 2021-1-Writ L.R. 289 to urge that a statutory body, which is not a “Court” in the sovereign system of Courts but a Tribunal is amenable to writ jurisdiction.
5.Prima facie finding that the view submitted by Mr.M.Palani is in line with the law, I requested Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal, Additional Government Pleader, who is representing the State of Tamil Nadu and Mr.R.Rajesh Vivekananthan, Deputy Solicitor General to place their submissions on this point.
6.Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal submitted that the Bench of B.Rajagopala Naidu's case, consisting of 5 judges, having explicitly held that STAT is amenable to writ jurisdiction, this Court has to apply the said view. He pointed out that under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the State of Tamil Nadu had inserted a provision under section 64-B, by virtue of Tamil Nadu Amendment Act 16 of 1971, with effect from 18.06.1971. Prior to this amendment, orders of STAT were amenable only to writ jurisdiction and after the amendment, a revision under section 115 of CPC was being entertained against such orders. With the repeal of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and no similar provision being made under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the deeming clause found under Section 64-B of the central legislation no longer exists. This is a powerful indicator that STAT cannot be considered as a “Court”. Refe
