Madras High Court
A.Rajeswari vs State Transport Appellate Tribunal on 25 January, 2019
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 25.01.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
W.P.(MD)Nos.3880, 3881, 3882, 3883,
3884, 3885 and 3886 of 2011
and
M.P.(MD)Nos.1,1,1,1,1,1,1,2,2,2,2,2,2 and 2 of 2011
W.P.(MD)No.3880 of 2011
A.Rajeswari ... Petitioner
Vs
1.State Transport Appellate Tribunal
High Court Campus,
Chennai.
2.Regional Transport Authority
Madurai (North), Madurai. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the
records of the respondents in Appeal No.225/2009 dated
23.03.2011 confirming the order of the second respondent in R.No.
68086/A3/2003 dated 02.12.2009 rejecting the application for
renewal of the permit filed by the petitioner in respect of mini bus
TN 58/E-1783 plying on the route “Government Rajaji Hospital to
Solaimathy” and to quash the same and further direct the
respondents to renew the permit.
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Govindaraman
for Mr.Na.Manimaran
For Respondents : Mr.M.Rajarajan
Government Advocate
(in all writ petitions)
COMMON ORDER
The writ petitioners are mini bus operators. They were granted permit under the 1997 Scheme in January 1999. In the meanwhile, the validity of the said scheme was impugned by the existing operators and they succeeded before the learned Single Judge. It appears that the Government went on appeal before the Hon'ble Division Bench against the order of the learned Single Judge. In the meanwhile, the Government modified the 1997 Scheme and brought in the new 1999 Scheme. The new Scheme was also challenged in a batch of writ petitions by the existing operators. The writ petitions were however dismissed. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, even while dismissing the batch of writ petitions challenging the 1999 Scheme, the learned Single Judge specifically observed that the permits issued under the 1997 scheme stood saved.
http://www.judis.nic.in 3
2.Be that as it may, the petitioners' permit came up for renewal in the year 2004. The petitioners filed separate applications. According to the petitioners it was not considered. Again it came up for further renewal in the year 2009. Both the applications of the petitioners were taken up together for consideration by the second respondent. The second respondent by order dated 02.12.2009 rejected the petitioners' application for renewal. The reason for the said rejection was that the route in which the petitioners were permitted to ply, lies in the corporation limits and that it exceeds the served sector by 4 kms. The Motor Vehicles Inspector Grade-I, Madurai (North) inspected the route and submitted a report dated 16.11.2009 to that effect. It reads as follows:
“Length of served portion : 9.2 Kms
(including Municipal Limit)
Length of unserved portion :6 Kms
Total route length : 15.2 Kms.”
3.In that view of the matter the application for renewal stood rejected. Questioning the same, the writ petitioners filed appeals before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Chennai. App.Nos. 225, 226, 227, 229, 230, 231 and 232 of 2009 filed by the http://www.judis.nic.in 4 petitioners were dismissed on 23.03.2011. The reason for dismissal was that the petitioners had been penalized for violation of the Motor Vehicles Act on quite a few occasions. Challenging the same these writ petitions have been filed.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioners raised very many contentions. But then, I am of the view that the writ petitions will have to be allowed on one short ground. Section 81 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 deals with renewal of permit. The proviso to Section 81(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act reads that no application under this Sub Section shall be rejected unless an opportunity of being heard is given to the applicant. In this case, admittedly no such opportunity was given.
5.That apart, the order of the original authority rests on the report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade-I, Madurai (North). Admittedly, the inspection by the said officer was carried out behind the back of the writ petitioner. Thus, there has been a clear breach of the principles of natural justice and also the aforesaid statutory requirement. It is also seen that the contention that the petitioner's permit stood saved under the 1997 scheme has not http://www.judis.nic.in 5 been considered. More than anything else the reason given by the Tribunal is not found in the order of the original authority.
6.For these reasons, the orders impugned in these writ petitions stand quashed. Accordingly, these writ petitions stand allowed. The matter is remitted to the file of the second respondent. The second respondent stated before this Court that a decision on the petitioners' renewal applications would be decided within a period of four weeks.
7.The learned counsel for the petitioners stated that an application for renewal of the subsequent period has not been submitted. The second respondent will consider all the applications together and take a decision. Till the decision is taken by the second respondent, the status quo obtaining as on date shall continue.
8.Accordingly, these writ petitions are allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
25.01.2019
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
pnn
http://www.judis.nic.in
6
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
pnn
To
1.The State Transport Appellate Tribunal High Court Campus, Chennai.
2.Regional Transport Authority Madurai (North) W.P.(MD)Nos.3880, 3881, 3882, 3883, 3884, 3885 and 3886 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1,1,1,1,1,1,1,2,2,2,2,2,2 and 2 of 2011 25.01.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in