Madras High Court
S.Pauldurai vs The Regional Transport Authority on 18 October, 2019
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
ORDER
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 81(4)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act and proceeded to refuse the renewal of permit on the ground that the petitioner has been punished on more than two occasions within a period of 12 months reckoned from 15 days prior to the date of consideration of the application. The petitioner has compounded all the offences and hence, the said offence should not be put against the petitioner while considering the application for renewal of permit. Even assuming that the offences are put 4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(MD).No.205 of 2020 against the petitioner, the renewal application should have been considered after the expiry of 12 months from the last date of the offence. Hence, he prayed for allowing the revision petition.
9.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the Regional Transport Authority had contended that the petitioner is a habitual offender and he has been operating the vehicle in violation of permit condition on several occasions. A perusal of the history sheet relating to the vehicle will clearly disclose that at least on 9 occasions, the petitioner has compounded the offence. Therefore, the case of the petitioner squarely falls under Section 81(4)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act and hence, the Original Authority and the Appellate Authority are right in rejecting the request of the petitioner for renewal of permit. Hence, he prayed for sustaining the order passed by the Appellate Authority.
10.I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.
11.Admittedly, the petitioner was the permit holder to run a stage carriage mini bus for the period covered from 11.04.2011 to 10.04.2016. The petitioner has not applied for renewal of the permit within the 5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(MD).No.205 of 2020 prescribed period. The renewal application was presented by the petitioner only on 08.09.2016 with a delay of 150 days. The petitioner has enclosed certain medical certificates to condone the delay in filing the renewal application. It is true that the Regional Transport Authority is empowered to condone, if reasonable cause is made out, in view of Section 81(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act. However, the renewal application has not been rejected on the ground of delay, but on merits in view of certain offences committed by the petitioner.
12.A perusal of the order of the Original Authority reveals that the petitioner has operated his vehicle in a different route in violation of the permit condition and thereby caused huge financial loss to other private operators and the Government Transport Corporation. The Original Authority further found that 9 check reports have been raised as against the mini bus during the period between 16.02.2015 and 15.03.2016 and the petitioner has paid compounding fee of Rs.31,500/-. Though the permit had expired on 10.04.2016, the petitioner had operated the vehicle on 12.04.2016 without permit. These findings of the Original Authority have not been disputed.
6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(MD).No.205 of 2020
13.Section 81(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 empowers the Transport Authority to reject the application for renewal of a permit on any one of the grounds enumerated therein. As per Section 81(4)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, the authority is empowered to reject the renewal, if the applicant had been punished twice or more for any one of the following offences within a period of 12 months reckoned from 15 days prior to the date of consideration of the application committed as a result of the operation of a stage carriage service.
14.One of the offences enumerated therein is plying of the vehicle on an unauthorized route and making unauthorized trips. In the present case, the petitioner has operated the vehicle in a route which is different from the route that was approved in the permit. After expiry of the permit on 10.04.2016, without renewal of the permit, the petitioner had operated the vehicle on 12.04.2016 and the vehicle was impounded by the Transport Authority on the said date. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner has committed the offence of plying vehicle on an unauthorized route and making unauthorized trips.
7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(MD).No.205 of 2020
15.The history sheet of the vehicle for which the renewal of permit was sought for, discloses that at least 9 check reports have been raised as against the vehicle between 16.02.2015 and 15.03.2016. For all these check reports, the petitioner has paid a compounding fee. The petitioner has filed a renewal application on 08.09.2016. Therefore, within a period of 12 months reckoned from 15 days prior to the filing of the application, the petitioner has been punished more than twice. Therefore, the Original Authority was right in rejecting the application for renewal on the ground of disqualification incurred by the revision petitioner.
16.A perusal of Section 81 discloses that the said disqualification is permanent in nature and there is no provision for reconsideration of the renewal after the expiry of 12 months period from the date of punishment. Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Original Authority which is confirmed by the Appellate Authority. This Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No costs.
23.02.2023
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
NCC : Yes/No
msa
8/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD).No.205 of 2020
To
1.The State Transport Appellate Tribunal
Chennai,
2.The Regional Transport Authority
Tirunelveli
3.The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
9/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD).No.205 of 2020
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J
msa
Pre-delivery order made in
C.R.P.(MD).No.205 of 2020
23.02.2023
10/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis