Madras High Court
Usha Rani vs The State Transport Appellate Tribunal on 20 June, 2019
Author: Anita Sumanth
Bench: Anita Sumanth
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 20.06.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
W.P(MD)No.14646 of 2010
and M.P.(MD)Nos. 1 and 2 of 2010
Usha Rani ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State Transport Appellate Tribunal,
Chennai.
2.The Regional Transport Authority,
Pudukottai.
3.S.Manoharan ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for
the records relating to the proceedings of the second respondent in Ref.
51666/B2/009 dated 04/2010 quash the same and direct the second
respondent to grant mini b us permit to the petitioner for the route
Pudukottai Thilagar Thidal to Mangudi Panchayat Board Office Kovilpatti,
Palaniyappan Nagar, Balan Nagar, Rajavayal, Vadamulappur, Ellaipatti,
Sellugudi, Sirunjunai, Mettupatti and Marayapatti based on the directions
of the first respondent.
For Petitioner : Mr.Raveekumar
For R1 to R2 : Mr.A.Thiyagarajan
Government Advocate
ORDER
The petitioner had applied for grant of Mini Bus permit in the month of April 2010 from Pudukkottai Thilagar Thidal to Mangudi Panchayat Board Office (via) Kovilpatti, Palaniyappan Nagar, Balan Nagar Rajavayal, Vadamalayan, Ellaipatti, Sellugudi, Sirunjunai, Mettupatti and Marayapatti. http://www.judis.nic.in 2
2.Since the application was not considered or disposed of, the petitioner had approached this Court in W.P.(MD) No.7226 of 2005. This Court by order dated 05.08.2005 directed the second respondent to consider the application and pass orders within a period of 12 weeks. Pursuant thereto, survey was conducted on the said area that revealed that the length for the route was 18.9 kilometers, the served sector being 3.8 kilometers unserved sector being 15.1 kilometers. The Regional Transport Authority thus ordered the grant of the permit pursuant to which the petitioner was calling upon to produce various documents for confirmation and issue of the same.
3. In the meantime, it appears that the third respondent had filed a revision petition before the Regional Transport Appellate Tribunal (STAT), Chennai, challenging the order of the Regional Transport Authority granting Mini Bus permit to the petitioner. The Appellate Tribunal allowed the Revision Petition setting aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority, directing the matter to the Regional Transport Authority for fresh consideration and orders after hearing both sides.
4. It is pursuant thereto that the impugned orders have been passed by the Regional Transport Authority in G.O.Ms.No.1523, Home (Transport-III) Department, dated 17.11.1999 and assailing the same, the petitioner is before this Court.
http://www.judis.nic.in 3
5. Counter filed by the Regional Transport Authority reveals that permits have been issued to two (2) mini buses on the applied route as follows:
Vehicle Registration Permit holder Permit Number and Permitted route of Number name and Address Validity the Vehicle TN 55 K 9781 Tmt.Rasitha 02/2005 Pudukkottai Begum, 03/08/2010 Thilagar thidal to W/o Mohamed Mettu patty (via) Meera, 77 Thirukokarnam, Kamarajapuram, Kovilpatty,Karuppar 9th Street ayan koil main Pudukottai Road, Balan Nagar
(v), Balan Nagar, Rajavayal, Railway gate, Rajavayal (v), SIPCOT, Thiruvengaivasal, Vadamalappur, Ellaipatty, Sellukudi and Sirunjunai TN 58 E 1873 Thiru.V.Arulandu, 10/2005 Poosanthurai to S/OViyakula 25.11.2005 Mangudi, Via Udaiyur Agarapatty,Chekoo rani, Nathampannai Thiruvappurnal road, Collector's office Housing Board Road, Santhaipettia (Lorry Market), Thiruvappur Railway gate, Sellukudi(v),Sirunj unai, Mettupatty, Marayapatty and Mangudi (via)
6. The Authority thus relies upon G.O.Ms.No.1543, Home (Tr-II) Department, dated 17.11.1999 to the effect that permits for operation of mini bus in rural areas are not liable to be issued as stage carriage http://www.judis.nic.in services are already operating in the said route. 4
7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2
8. G.O.Ms.No.1543 dated 17.11.1999 stipulates the following as conditions for issuance of permit:
Maximum and Minimum number of Maximum Trips – 5,926 trips proposed to be performed in each Minimum Trips – 4,241 route by the State Transport undertaking to the exclusion, complete To the complete exclusion of other of partial or otherwise of other persons persons other than the State Transport undertakings of other States, the existing permits of small operators protected under (Special Provisions) Act, 1992 (Tamil Nadu Act 41 of 1992) (Tamil Nadu Act 41 of 1992), the permits of stage carriage operators covered by inter-State Agreements and the permits of mini bus operators to operate in the rural areas of the District where no stage carriage services are provided upto a route length not exceeding 20 kms with an overlapping distance not exceeding 4 kms on the routes where stage carriages are thereby offering comfort to the travelling public.
9. A Division Bench of this Court in R.Shanmugaiah Vs. P.S.Lakshmanakumar and 2 others (W.A. Nos.135 and 136 of 2006 dated 2.8.2006) considered a similar challenge holding that the service upon a sector should not be made available multiple therein. At paragraphs 16.9 and 16.10 the Bench states thus:
16.9.A conjoint reading of the above referred to statutory provisions and the decision of the Hon'ble http://www.judis.nic.in Supreme Court wherein the purpose of fixing stages for a 5 stage carriage service has been stated, leads us to hold that a mini bus is nothing but a stage carriage service. In other words, a mini bus satisfies the definition of a 'stage carriage' as defined under Section 2(40) of the Act, apart from the fact that Rule 3(o) of the Rules specifically means a mini bus as a stage carriage. As between a regular stage carriage and a mini bus, the only difference is that in respect of a mini bus the maximum number of passengers permissible has been determined as 25, while the minimum is six which is common both for a regular as well as a mini bus. It cannot be disputed that a mini bus operation being a stage carriage has to necessarily operate its vehicle in the route permitted for it in between the various stages determined. Therefore, all the parameters which are prescribed in respect of a regular bus while operating in a permitted route such as the prescription of fares, the starting point and the destination, minimum prescribed number of passengers permissible, the prescribed number of maximum numbers of passengers permissible, the number of stages fixed in between the permitted route are all common and applicable to a mini bus as well. The statutory definition contained in Rule 3(o) of the Rules, defining a 'mini bus' to mean a stage carriage, further strengthens the position that a mini bus operation can only be considered as a stage carriage service and cannot be distinguished from a stage carriage operated with a vehicle of larger passenger capacity when it comes to the question of whether such services is a stage carriage service; or can it be called as any other service under the provisions of the Act. To put it differently, a mini bus operation though by virtue of the definition contained in Rule 3(o) of the Rules has got a restricted number of passengers to be carried at a maximum level, as far its operation in a route is concerned, it is nothing but a stage carriage service.
16.10.Therefore, the irresistible conclusion can only be that a mini bus service is also a stage carriage service in its operation in a permitted route. When such a conclusion is an irresistible one, based on the provisions of the Act and the Rules as well as the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we are left with no other option except to hold that a 'stage carriage service' would take within its fold the operation of all types of carriages in any particular route when such carriages are being operated covering different stages in that particular route providing transport facilities for all those who wish to http://www.judis.nic.in avail the service as passengers.6
10. In the light of the ratio of the decision as above as well as the admitted position that the route in question is already served, there is no scope for entertaining yet another application for grant of permit on the same route.
11. In the aforesaid circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.(MD) Nos. 1 and 2 of 2010 are also dismissed.
20.06.2019
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
CM
To
1.The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Chennai.
2.The Regional Transport Authority, Pudukottai.
http://www.judis.nic.in 7 DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH. J., CM W.P(MD)No.14646 of 2010 and M.P(MD) Nos. 1 and 2 of 2010 20.06.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in