C.R.P.(MD).No.205 of 2020

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

RESERVED ON: 21.02.2023

DELIVERED ON: 23.02.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

C.R.P.(MD).No.205 of 2020

S.Pauldurai

....Petitioner

Vs

The Regional Transport Authority

Tirunelveli

....Respondents

PRAYER: Civil Revision Case is filed under Article 227 of Constitution

of India, to set aside the judgement made in M.V.App.No.165 of 2016

dated 18.10.2019 by State Transport Appellate Tribunal Chennai,

consequently direct the respondent to renew the petitioner mini stage

carriage permit in respect of bearing registration No.TN-72-AM-1234.

For Petitioner

: Mr.T.Padmanabhan

For Respondent

: Mr.C.Baskaran

Government Advocate

1/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(MD).No.205 of 2020

O R D E R

The present revision petition has been filed by a stage carriage

mini bus operator challenging an order passed by the State Transport

Appellate Tribunal.

2.The petitioner is the holder of the stage carriage mini bus

permit and the permit was valid up to 10.04.2016. The petitioner had

submitted a renewal application on 08.09.2016 with a delay of 150 days

along with a medical certificate.

3.On 05.10.2016 the petitioner was issued with a show cause

notice why action should not be initiated against him for operating the

vehicle without renewing the permit. The petitioner had submitted an

explanation on 13.10.2016 admitting his delinquency and requested to

forgive him and to renew the permit.

4.An enquiry was conducted on 15.11.2015 and the petitioner

had submitted his written statement requesting to renew the permit and had

given an undertaking that he will abide by the orders of the authorities.

The Regional Transport Authority by his order dated Nil.11.2016 had

rejected the application for renewal of permit on the following grounds:

2/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(MD).No.205 of 2020

(a). The petitioner had operated the mini bus on a different route

other than the permitted route.

(b). As per history sheet during the period between 16.02.2015

and 15.03.2016, at least on 9 occasions, the permit of the petitioner has

been cancelled and a compounding fee of Rs.31,500/- has been collected

from the petitioner.

(c).The petitioner has operated the vehicle on 12.04.2016

without permit and he has operated the vehicle 3.2 km beyond the

permitted route.

5.The Original Authority has found that the petitioner is a

habitual offender and hence, he is not entitled for renewal of permit in

view of Section 81(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Challenging the

said order, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the State Transport

Appellate Tribunal, Chennai.

6.The Appellate Authority after careful consideration of the

submissions made on the side of the petitioner, had confirmed the order of

the Original Authority relying upon the history sheet of the vehicle of the

petitioner. The said order is under challenge in the present revision

petition.

3/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(MD).No.205 of 2020

7.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner had contended

that the permit was given to petitioner on 11.04.2011 which was valid till

10.04.2016. The vehicle was impounded on 12.04.2016 on the alleged

ground that the vehicle was operated without permit. He had further stated

that an application for renewal of permit was submitted on 18.04.2016

with a delay of 150 days.

8.According to the learned counsel for the petitioner in view of

Section 81(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, the Original Authority is

empowered to condone the delay and receive the application for renewal

of permit. Along with renewal application, the petitioner has submitted a

medical certificate pointing out the reason for not applying for renewal

within the prescribed period. However, the Regional Transport Authority

has proceeded to invoke Section