Madras High Court
M.Krishnappan vs R.Viduthalai on 7 September, 2006
Author: P. Sathasivam
Bench: P.Sathasivam, S.Manikumar
?IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS %DATED: 07/09/2006 *CORAM The HON'BLE Mr.Justice P.SATHASIVAM and The HON'BLE Mr.Justice S.MANIKUMAR +Review C.M.P. No.13 of 1997 #M.Subbiah xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx $Cholan Roadways Corporation Limited xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx !FOR PETITIONER : M.Krishnappan ^FOR RESPONDENT : R.Viduthalai :ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated:- 07.09.2006 Coram:- The HONOURABLE Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAM and The HONOURABLE Mr. Justice S.MANIKUMAR Review CMP No.13/97 & Review Application Nos. 23 and 24 of 1997 in W.A. No.64/96 and W.P. Nos.3470 & 3471 of 1994 M.Subbiah .. Petitioner in Review Applications. vs. 1. Cholan Roadways Corporation Limited, represented by its Managing Director, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District. .. R 1 in all Applications 2. The Regional Transport Authority, Thanjavur. .. R 2 in Rev.Nos.23 & 24/97 & R 5 in Rev.CMP.13 of 1997 3. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, City Civil Court Buildings, Madras 104. .. R 3 in Rev.23/97 & R 4 in Rev. CMP.13 of 1997. 4. The Union of India, represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Transport, New Delhi. .. R 2 in Rev.CMP.13 of 1997 5. The State of Tamilnadu, represented by its Secretary, Home (Transport) Department, Madras 600 009. .. R 3 in Rev.CMP.13 of 1997 Review Applications filed against the orders dated 27.3.1996 made in W.A. No.64 of 1996 and W.P. Nos.3470 & 3471 of 1994. For Petitioners : Mr.M.Krishnappan For Respondents/ : Mr.R. Viduthalai, State & Transport Corporation Advocate General, assisted by Mr.V.R.Kamalanathan & Mrs.D.Geetha, Additional Government Pleader. COMMON ORDER
P. SATHASIVAM, J.
One Mr.M.Subbiah, Proprietor, Amman Transport, Trichy, aggrieved by the Order, dated 27.3.1996, in W.A. No.64 of 1996, has filed Review C.M.P. No.13 of 1997. He also filed Review Application Nos.23 and 24 of 1997 against the order, dated 27.3.1996, in W.P. Nos.3470 & 3471 of 1994.
2. Heard Mr.M.Krishnappan, counsel for Review Petitioners and Mr.R.Viduthalai, learned Advocate General for the State & Transport Corporation.
3. Brief facts are as follows:-
The petitioner herein has filed W.P. No.3468 of 1986 before this Court, praying to issue a writ of declaration, declaring that Section 58 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, so far as it relates to the prescription of 120 days for filing the application for renewal of stage carriage permits, is null and void in so far as it affects the petitioner.
The learned single Judge, by order dated 3.8.1993, disposed of the said Writ Petition by directing the Regional Transport Authority, Thanjavur, to dispose of the Renewal Application in accordance with law without reference to Section 58(2-A) of 1939 Act and also without reference to the earlier rejection of the application filed by the petitioner; making it clear that the authorisation authorities will consider the application filed by the Writ Petitioner and pass orders after giving opportunity to the parties concerned.
Aggrieved by the said order of the learned single Judge, Cholan Roadways Corporation Ltd., filed Writ appeal No.64 of 1996 before the Division Bench. After considering the relevant provisions and the rival contentions, the Bench concluded that proviso to sub-Section (2) of Section 58 of the 1939 Act is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It was further held that the provisions contained in sub-Sections (2) and (2A) of Section 58 of 1939 Act, prescribing the period for making application for renewal as 120 days and 15 days respectively in the case of private carriage operators and stage carriage operators respectively, are valid. The Division Bench further concluded that since the permit expired before the new Act came into force, the Application filed for renewal under the 1939 Act was beyond the time, therefore, the renewal could not be granted; and consequently, set aside the direction issued by the learned single Judge, allowing the writ appeal.
Following the said decision in the Writ Appeal, the same Division Bench allowed Writ Petition Nos.3470 & 3471 of 1994 filed by Cholan Roadways Corporation. Against the order in Writ Appeal No.64 of 1996, petitioner Subbiah preferred SLP No.13930 of 1996 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. However, the said Special Leave Petition was dismissed as withdrawn with permission to approach the High Court by way of Review. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the above mentioned three Review Applications before this Court. The Division Bench, by order dated 01.02.2001, after finding that no patent error was brought to their notice and that rehearing of the matter is not permissible, dismissed all the three Petitions.
Aggrieved by the dismissal of the Review Petitions, dated 01.02.2001, the petitioner filed Civil Appeal Nos.3758-3760 of 2002 before the Supreme Court. By Order dated 25.01.2006, the Hon'ble Supreme Court remitted the matters to this Court to consider in the light of the various orders passed by the learned single Judges and the Supreme Court on the transfer petitions. In this way, the very same Review Applications came to be posted before us for consideration.
4. Before considering the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Advocate General for the State & Transport Corporation, it is useful to refer to the order of remand, dated 25.01.2006, passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which is extracted here-under:-
" O R D E R Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we deem it proper to direct the High Court to consider the effect and relevance, if any, of the orders passed by various learned Single Judges and this Court on the transfer petitions so far as present case are concerned. The consideration of the High Court shall be limited to that extent only.
Since the matter is pending since long, the High Court is requested to dispose of the matter within four months from the date of receipt of our order. The learned Chief Justice of the High Court is requested to fix an appropriate Division Bench for hearing of these matters.
The appeals are disposed of accordingly."
5. Mr.Krishnappan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has brought to our notice various orders passed by the learned single Judges of this Court. A perusal of all those orders shows that, without reference to the relevant provisions, directions have been issued to consider the renewal application and dispose of the same without reference to Section 58 of the 1939 Act. We verified all those orders available in the typed set of papers. In the Review Applications, the petitioner has prayed for re-considering the orders passed in Writ Appeal No.64 of 1996 and WP Nos.3470 and 3471 of 1994. It is relevant to note that the writ petitioner in WP.3468 of 1986 sought for a declaration to declare the first proviso to Section-58(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, as far as it prescribes 120 days for filing application for renewal of stage carriage permit before the date of expiry of the permit, as null and void.
6. Admittedly, the learned single Judge had not gone into the relief prayed for, however, issued a formal direction for disposal of the renewal application without reference to the limitation prescribed under Section 58(2-A) of the Act. Though the said order was not challenged immediately by Cholan Roadways Corporation/State Transport Corporation, admittedly, the appeal was entertained by the Division Bench and disposed of on merits. Now, at this point of time, it cannot be contended that the appeal of the Transport Corporation is to be dismissed on the ground of laches.
7. We verified the entire judgment of the Division Bench, dated 27.3.1996. Though an argument was advanced that the private operators and the State Transport Undertaking Corporations fall in the same category, as rightly observed by the Division Bench, they belong to different category itself and the private operators cannot be treated on par with the State Transport Corporations/Undertakings. It is not in dispute that the object to be served by the Transport Undertakings is to provide better transport facilities to the travelling public irrespective of the loss or gain, whereas, in the case of private operators, the purpose will be only to make profit. If we consider the question in the said angle, prescription of different periods for renewal of permits and preferring to the State Transport Undertakings/Corporations over the Private Operators in the matter of applying for renewal of permit cannot be held to have no nexus to the objects sought to be achieved by the statute. In this way, we are of the view that the Division Bench has correctly concluded that proviso to sub-Section (2) of Section 58 of the 1939 Act is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and rightly rejected the contention relating to the same.
8. In the case on hand, the permit expired before the new Act came into force, in such circumstance, as rightly pointed out by the earlier Division Bench, the application filed for renewal under the 1939 Act was beyond the time, therefore, the renewal could not be granted. As such, renewal for a further period did not arise and, in this way, the Division Bench did not approve the direction issued by the learned Judge.
9. As discussed above, on going through the various directions of the learned single Judges of this Court; elaborate and convincing reasons given by the Division Bench while disposing of Writ Appeal No.64/96; in the absence of any error apparent on the face of the record, we are of the view that there is no merit in the Review Applications.
Consequently, all the three Review Applications fail and they are dismissed. No costs.
JI.
To
1. Secretary, Home (Transport) Department, Madras 9.
2. Secretary, Ministry of Transport, New Delhi.
3. The Regional Transport Authority, Thanjavur.
4. Registrar, State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras.
[PRV/7848] dfd