Madras High Court
T.Narayani Ammal vs The State Transport Appellate on 28 January, 2011
Author: K.Chandru
Bench: K.Chandru
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 28/01/2011
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU
W.P.(MD)NO.10565 of 2007
and
W.P.(MD)NO.10566 of 2007
and
M.P.(MD)Nos.1,1,2 and 2 of 2007
T.Narayani Ammal .. Petitioner in
W.P.(MD)No.10565 of 2007
D.Malarkodi .. Petitioner in
W.P.(MD)No.10566 of 2007
Vs.
1.The State Transport Appellate
Tribunal,
Chennai-104.
2.The Regional Transport Authority,
Tiruchirappalli.
3.K.Marappan .. Respondents in
both writ petitions
Both writ petitions have been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of
the first respondent impugned judgment in Appeal No.325 of 2005, dated
22.08.2007 and to quash the same.
!For Petitioners ... Mr.C.Asaithambi
^For Respondents ... Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, GA for R2
- - - -
:COMMON ORDER
The petitioners in both writ petitions are Transport Operators. They have filed the two writ petitions, challenging an order of the first respondent State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Chennai made in Appeal No.325 of 2005, dated 22.08.2007.
2.In both writ petitions, notice of motion was ordered on 14.12.2007. Pending the notice of motion, an interim stay was granted on 6.2.2008.
3.It is the case of the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.10565 of 2007 that she is a mini bus operator operating a mini bus bearing Registration No.TN 48/H 1858 (since replaced) plying on the route from Seerathoppu to National College, Via Keelavayalur, Perungudi North Pudur, Somarasampettai, Allithurai, Sandhapuram, Ponganore, Ponganore Cross Road, Koraiyaru Pallam. The permit was issued on 12.1.2001 to 11.01.2006. Subsequently, it was renewed upto 2011.She claimed that she is operating on this route 30 singles per day. Apart from that, there are other 5 mini buses which are are operating on the same route 140 singles per day. Further, the State Transport Corporation as well as private stage carriage are also operating in the route. In the meanwhile, the third respondent had applied for a mini bus permit with the second respondent on 16.9.2003 on the very same route from V.S.T Roundana to Allithurai. His application was returned since there were defects.
4.Thereafter, the third respondent moved this court in W.P.No.29202 of 2003 and obtained an order, dated 17.10.2003 directing his application to be considered. Pursuant to this order, after notice, the second respondent considered the third respondent's application as well as the petitioner's objection and found that the application of the third respondent was on narrow compose, for which mini bus scheme was not introduced. Therefore, the second respondent rejected the application by an order dated 15.12.2004. As against the said order, the third respondent filed an appeal before the first respondent Tribunal, which was taken on file as appeal No.325 of 2005. The petitioner was not made as a party. Before considering his appeal, the Tribunal should have directed the third respondent to implead all necessary parties. Therefore, he is not aware of the outcome of the impugned order, dated 22.8.2007. Hence he prayed for setting aside the said order. The contention was that the Tribunal failed to adhere to the G.O.Ms.No.1537, Home (Transport), dated 17.11.1999. The Tribunal also failed to see that the third respondent's application comes under the served sector.
5.Similar plea was raised in W.P.(MD)No.10566 of 2007. The counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court in R.Shanmugaiah Vs. P.S.Lakshmanakumar and others reported in 2007 Writ L.R. 832 for contending that if mini bus route overlaps the existing route beyond the permissible limit of 4 Kms, the same cannot be granted by the authorities.
6.But, however, in the present case, the Tribunal held that as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mithilesh Garg Vs. Union of India and others reported in AIR 1992 SC 443, the grant of mini bus permit shall be by mere asking for it subject to satisfactory fulfillment of requirements . It also found that after initial proposals were objected to including by the petitioners, the third respondent had submitted the proposal for the modified route on 1.11.2004, thereby curtailing the route from Ponnagar to Athipalli to reduce the served portion. Thereafter, the Regional Transport Authority had ordered a fresh inspection of the proposed modified route. The proposed modified route was duly inspected by the Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade-I, Trichy, who filed the report along with the sketch on 9.11.2004. As per the said sketch and report, the distance of the entire length of the route, served sector and unserved sector is 8.2 Kms., 3.775 Kms. and 4.45 Kms. Respectively. Two requirements, i.e. distance norms and allotment position in the case of the third respondent was fully satisfied. The rejection made by the Regional Transport Authority was was irrelevant ground and contrary to the liberalized policy. Therefore, the R.T.A was directed to dispose of the application within 12 weeks. It was also directed that after remanding the matter for a fresh disposal in accordance with law subject to seniority in the vacancies and by taking into account the observations made, the authority was directed to ascertain the total number of existing stage carriage permits, including mini bus permits and also the length of the entire route in served and unserved sector through joint inspection by the officials concerned in the presence of the third respondent as well as objectors and consider the grant of permission.
7.It is not clear as to how any exception can be taken to the well considered order of the Tribunal. It had taken into consideration all relevant factors including the criteria for grant of permit. It had not ordered any positive direction. It had merely requested the Regional Transport Authority to consider the case that too after joint inspection in the presence of the parties including the persons like petitioners. This court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order as no right of the petitioners have been curtailed. Hence both writ petitions will stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed.
vvk To
1.The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Chennai-104.
2.The Regional Transport Authority, Tiruchirappalli.