Madras High Court
V.Revathy vs The Regional Transport Authority on 16 June, 2008
Author: S. Manikumar
Bench: S.Manikumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 16.06.2008
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR
W.P.No.96 of 2005
V.Revathy ... Petitioner
vs.
1. The Regional Transport Authority,
Coimbatore.
2. The Regional Transport Officer,
Tiruppur.
3. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal,
Chennai-104. ... Respondents
Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent, vide proceedings in R.No.19770/A3/03, dated 24.11.2004, quash the same and further direct the first respondent to grant mini bus permit in accordance with orders of the third respondent in Appeal No.43 of 2004, dated 01.09.2004 on the route Veerapandi to Tiruppur Old bus stand.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Govindraman
For Respondents : Mr.A.Arumugam,
Additional Government Pleader
O R D E R
The petitioner has sought for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the proceedings of the first respondent in R.No.19770/A3/03, dated 24.11.2004 and further direct the first respondent to grant mini bus permit in accordance with orders of the third respondent in Appeal No.43 of 2004, dated 01.09.2004 on the route Veerapandi to Tiruppur Old bus stand and for further orders.
2. Facts leading to the Writ Petition are as follows:
On 18.03.2003, the petitioner has applied for grant of mini bus permit to the Regional Transport Officer, Tiruppur, the second respondent herein, for the route, Veerapandi to Tiruppur Old bus stand. According to the petitioner, as per Rule 136 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, the Regional Transport Authority, Coimbatore, first respondent herein, ought to have considered his application and pass orders within a period of 30 days. Since, he did not perform his statutory duty, the petitioner filed W.P.No.11831 of 2003 for a Mandamus and this Court, by order dated 17.04.2003, directed the first respondent to consider his application for grant of mini bus permit within a prescribed time limit. Pursuant to the directions of this Court, the first respondent has rejected the said application on 18.01.2004, against which, the petitioner preferred a statutory appeal under Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, third respondent in Appeal No.43 of 2004. The Tribunal, by order dated 01.09.2004, set aside the rejection order, dated 18.01.2004 and directed the first respondent to grant mini bus permit, subject to the availability of vacancy and to provide an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though the copy of the appellate order was acknowledged by the Regional Transport Authority, Coimbatore, first respondent on 26.09.2004, the respondents 1 and 2 were reluctant to pass orders on his application and therefore, he filed W.P.No.34488 of 2004, seeking for a Mandamus directing the first respondent to implement the order of the Tribunal made in Appeal No.43 of 2004. In the mean time, by order dated 24.10.2004, the first respondent once again rejected the application of the petitioner for grant of mini bus permit, stating that all the eight permits allotted to Tiruppur region, Coimbatore district, have already been granted and that there was no vacancy. Subsequently, when W.P.No.34488 of 2004 came up for hearing, it was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to question the order of rejection of permit, dated 24.10.2004. Hence, the present Writ Petition.
3. Mr.S.Govindraman, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the scheme, the Transport Authority of Coimbatore Revenue District is empowered to grant 250 Transport permits in the Revenue District and when the scheme does not contemplate any specific quota to be allotted to Trippur region, the Transport Authority ought to have considered the need of travelling public and granted permit. Therefore, he submitted that the reason assigned by the first respondent in the impugned order that quota allotted to Tiruppur region has already been filled up, is contrary to the scheme.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that when the Tribunal has specifically directed the first respondent to provide an opportunity of the personal hearing and Section 80(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 contemplates an opportunity of personal hearing before the refusal of the application, the first respondent has failed to adhere to the mandatory provision and therefore, there is a violation of the principles of natural justice. He further submitted that when the Tribunal had directed the permit issuing authority to grant mini bus permit, subject to the availability of the vacancy, in respect of Coimbatore Revenue District, the first respondent has failed to comply with the directions, but has granted mini bus permits to other applicants, though the said applications were not supported by any orders of the Tribunal or the Court of law. Therefore, he submitted that the first respondent has violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
5. On the other hand, Mr.A.Arumugam, learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that the route, for which, the petitioner made an application was already served by a mini bus operator and that is sufficient to meet the transport facilities of the travelling public. He further submitted that the Regional Transport Officer, Coimbatore, after considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has observed that out of 6.2 kms distance mentioned in the application submitted by the petitioner, 3.95 kms was already covered by three mini buses and in respect of the remaining portion of 2.35 kms, another mini bus operator, for the entire route, from Veerapandi to Tiruppur Old bus stand, was already granted permit and therefore, the need of the public, taken into consideration, while considering the application of the petitioner. He further submitted that as on the date of refusal to grant permit, there were 30 applications pending in the order of seniority maintained in the said office. Referring to the appellate order, he further submitted that pursuant to the appellate order of the Tribunal, dated 24.10.2004, the application for grant of mini bus permit was considered by the Regional Transport Authority, Tiruppur region, with reference to the vacancy allotted to the Tiruppur region. As all the vacancies were already filled up, the Regional Transport Authority, Tiruppur region, has rejected the request of the petitioner, which was also confirmed in the appeal. He also submitted that 250 mini bus permits allotted to Coimbatore Revenue District were split up and allotted to various regions in the District and that all the 89 permits allotted to Trippur region were already granted. In the above circumstances, he prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
6. Perusal of the original order in proceedings in R.No.19770/A3/03, dated 18.01.2004 shows that the petitioner was given a personal hearing on 30.06.2003 and after considering the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Regional Transport Authority has found that there was already a mini bus operating between Veerapandi and Tiruppur Old bus stand and it is sufficient to meet the requirements of the travelling public. He has also stated that 30 applications for grant of mini bus permit, pending in the order of seniority, as per the Mini bus permit application register maintained in the office. On merits, out of 6.2 kms distance mentioned in the application of the petitioner, 3.95 Kms and the remaining 2.35 kms is served by another operator, who has been granted permit to operate from Veerapandi to Tiruppur. It is to be noted that the scheme also contemplates that there should not be any overlapping of distance, not more than 4 kms.
7. In Appeal No.43 of 2003, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, following the decisions in Mithilesh Garg v. Union of India and others reported in AIR 1992 SC 448 and State of Kerala v. Mary Joseph reported in AIR 2001 Kerala 356, by observing that so long as the route is frequented and the necessity exists, the Tribunal, set aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority in R.No.19770/A3/2003, dated 18.01.2004 and directed the first respondent to consider the request of the petitioner and issue permit, subject to the condition that the petitioner complies with the requirements of law and also the availability of vacancies. The appellate authority has further clarified that for the purpose of deciding seniority of the applicants for grant of permit, the seniority of the applicants in the records of the Regional Transport Authority shall be the decisive factor and that the seniority of the other applications, which are continued to be pending with the Regional Transport Authority will not be relevant for ascertaining the seniority for the simple reason that those applicants have not been diligent enough to peruse the remedies. It is also seen from the appellate order that the Tribunal has directed the the Regional Transport Authority to provide an opportunity of being heard.
8. Pursuant to this order, the Regional Transport Authority, Tiruppur Region at Coimbatore, taking into consideration the number of permits allotted to Trippur Region, found that there were no vacancies and therefore, rejected the application of the petitioner for grant of mini bus permit on the route mentioned above. In respect of Coimbatore Revenue District, the Government, in exercise of their powers conferred by sub-Section (1) of Section 102 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, have issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.1532, Home (Transport-III), dated 17.09.1999 and formulated an approved modified scheme for Coimbatore District, permitting 250 mini bus (Private) to be operated the rural areas of the district, where no stage carriage services are provided upto the route length not exceeding 20 kms, with an overlapping distance of 4 kms on the route, where other stage carriages are operating. Taking into consideration, the population of the respective regions and the approved modified scheme for Coimbatore Revenue District, the Regional Transport Authority has set out specific number of permits for each region. 89 permits, which were allotted to Tiruppur Region have already been granted to the aspirants before consideration of the petitioner's application, dated 18.03.2003. Though the petitioner has contended that the first respondent has considered his application at a later point of time and failed to adhere and maintain the seniority list, as per the directions of the Tribunal, no materials have been placed to substantiate the allegations. In the absence of proof, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be countenanced.
9. Perusal of the impugned order does not indicate that the petitioner was given any personal hearing, as directed by the appellate authority. When the number of permits allotted to Tiruppur Region were already filled up, as on the date of consideration of the petitioner's application, prima facie, his application cannot be entertained on merits. The question of providing personal hearing as contemplated under Section 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act coupled with the directions of the Tribunal would arise only if there is refusal to grant permit. In the instant case, considering the number of vacancies for Tirppur Region, the application itself has been rejected and therefore, I do not find that there is any violation of the principles of natural justice or the provision of the statute.
10. Further, while permitting the petitioner to withdraw W.P.No.34488 of 2004, dated 07.12.2004, this Court had granted liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order of the Regional Transport Authority, dated 24.10.2004, which is impugned in this Writ Petition. As against the orders S. MANIKUMAR, J.
skm denying permit, an appeal remedy is provided under the Motor Vehicles Act. It is settled law that the Writ Petition filed without availing statutory remedy is not maintainable.
11. The decision of the Regional Transport Authority in allotting specific number of permits to different regions, within Coimbatore Revenue District has not been challenged in any proceedings and therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to challenge the same in a collateral proceeding filed against the rejection of his request for grant of mini bus permit.
12. For the reasons stated above, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
16.06.2008 skm To
1. The Regional Transport Authority, Coimbatore.
2. The Regional Transport Officer, Tiruppur.
3. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Chennai-104.
W.P.No.96 of 2005