Madras High Court
P.A.Viswanath vs The State Transport Appellate Tribunal on 23 August, 2022
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh
W.P.No.10256 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 23.08.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.No.10256 of 2015
and MP.Nos.1 and 2 of 2015
P.A.Viswanath ... Petitioner
.Vs.
1. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal
Chennai-600 104.
2. The Regional Transport Authority
Hosur @ Krishnagiri.
..Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a
Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the 2nd respondent
Dt. 26.2.2014 in R.No.62086/A2/2013 as well as the order of the 1st respondent dated
26.03.2015 in M.V. Appeal No.30/2014 and to quash the same and consequently directing
the 2nd respondent herein to permit the petitioner's mini stage carriage permit TN 24 Y
2710 to enter into Hosur Bus Stand as applied for by the petitioner herein.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Krishnappan
Senior Counsel
for Mr.P.Padmanabhan
For Respondents : Mr.U.Baranidharan
Additional Government Pleader
for R1, R2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
W.P.No.10256 of 2015
ORDER
The subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition pertains to the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 26.02.2014 as confirmed by the 1st respondent Appellate Tribunal through order dated 26.03.2015.
2.The case of the petitioner is that they were operating mini stage carriage from Mathigiri to C.S.I. Church and they had a valid permit upto 13.12.2016. The petitioner made a representation to the 2nd respondent to permit him to ply from CSI Church to Hosur Bus Stand. This representation made by the petitioner came to be rejected by the 2nd respondent through the impugned proceedings dated 26.02.2014, mainly on the ground that the route between the CSI Church to Hosur Bus Stand come under the Municipal limits and it has to be treated as a served sector.
3.Aggrieved by the order passed by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal and confirmed the decision taken by the 2nd respondent.
4.Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.
5.The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit. The 2nd respondent has taken a stand that the request made by the petitioner exceeded the distance of the served portion of the Mini Bus route as per the scheme published in G.O.Ms.No.1529, dated 17.11.1999.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/8 W.P.No.10256 of 2015 The 2nd respondent has taken a further stand that the scheme that was introduced under this Government Order was to benefit the rural public who have no transport facilities to reach the near by town by means of Mini Bus. That apart, a new scheme was published in G.O.Ms.No.136, dated 23.02.2011 and under the new scheme, guidelines were issued. In view of the same, the 2nd respondent has contended that there is no ground to interfere with the decision taken by the 2nd respondent and as confirmed by the Appellate Tribunal and has sought for the dismissal of the writ petition.
6.Heard Mr.M.Krishnappan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.U.Baranidharan, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.
7.There are two issues that requires the consideration of this Court and they are ;
(a) Whether the Mini Bus service is also a stage carriage service and hence, the petitioner is entitled for the Mini Bus permit upto the extended portion from CSI Church to Hosur bus stand and ;
(b) Whether the Government Order, which was relied upon by the respondent viz., G.O.Ms.No.1529, dated 17.11.1999 has any relevance more particularly after the coming into force of G.O.Ms.No.136, dated 23.02.2011 which has already been quashed by this Court and confirmed upto the Apex Court.
8.The first issue that has been framed by this Court is squarely covered by the judgment Division Bench of this Court in R.Shanmugaiah .v. P.S.Lakshmanakumar and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/8 W.P.No.10256 of 2015 Others reported in 2007 Writ L.R.832 . The relevant portion in the judgment is extracted hereunder:
16.1. The only other point to be considered is as to whether the grant now made in favour of the first respondent can be sustained irrespective of the fact that the said grant pertaining to the route Sivakasi Pandiyan Complex to Vilampatti is already covered by a stage carriage service upto a route length of 8.7 kms., and thereby hit by the prohibition imposed in the Scheme itself. As far as the said contention is concerned, while the appellant would contend that an existing mini bus operation is also a stage carriage service, according to the learned counsel for the first respondent, a mini bus operation cannot be equated to a regular stage carriage service and therefore the prohibition imposed in the scheme will not apply to the existing mini bus operation in the sector.
9.It is clear from the above that a Mini Bus service is also a stage carriage service in its operation in a permitted route. In view of the same, the orders passed by the respondents to the effect that the Mini Bus permit is entirely different from the issue of the stage carriage permit, is totally unsustainable.
10.Insofar as the second issue is concerned, the same is covered by the earlier order passed by this Court in W.P.No.30386 of 2008, dated 01.08.2022. The relevant portions in the order are extracted hereunder:
7.The learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court the order passed in a batch of writ petitions with respect to the very same issue. For proper appreciation, the relevant portions of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.9646 of 2005 etc., dated 04.08.2011, are extracted hereunder:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/8 W.P.No.10256 of 2015
4. During the pendency or the appeals, the first respondent passed an order under Section 214 (2) of the Motor Vehicle Act for continuing the operations of the Minibus. Finally, the first respondent passed the impugned order allowing the appeal by setting aside the order of the 2 respondent. However, he remitted the matter back to the 2nd respondent with a direction to survey the route and if the served sector and unserved areas are within the limits, the second respondent was further directed to proceed to renew the permit and the said direction was to be complied within six weeks from the date of receipt of records by the second respondent. Therefore, the grievance of the petitioners is that the first respondent having allowed the appeal ought to have granted the renewal as well. According to the petitioners, though the time frame fixed by, the first respondent has expired long back, the second respondent has not renewed the permit and hence these Writ Petitions.
5. At this juncture, when the gutters were taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing on both sides brought to the notice of this court, a similar order passed by this Court, dated 03.04.2007, in W.P.Nos.10079 to 10083 of 2705, by which this Court, by disposing of similar Writ Petitions mentioned above, gave a direction to proceed further as directed by the first respondent and pass appropriate orders, as per the direction given by the first respondent -
The State Transport Appellate Tribunal - Chennai. Till orders are passed, the parties were directed to maintain status-quo as on 03.04.2007 by indicating that the petitioners are also bound by the said order. The counsel for the petitioners and the respondents prayed for passing the same orders by giving disposal to these batch of matters.
6. When a query was put forth to the learned counsel for the respondents as to whether the direction issued by this Court on 3.04.2007 in Writ Petition Nos.10079 to 10083 of 2005 has been Complied with by the second respondent by taking appropriate survey in the respective route, in which the petitioners are plying their minibuses, the learned counsel on both sides submitted that the second respondent till date has not conducted the survey as directed by the first respondent. Therefore, it is appropriate for this Court to direct the parties to maintain status-quo as on today and at the same time, this Court further directs the second respondent to comply with the order passed by the first respondent as already directed by this Court in W.P.No.10079 to 10083 of 2005 by taking https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/8 W.P.No.10256 of 2015 proper survey as per the existing Government order which is governing both parties.
8.On a careful reading of the order passed by the 2 nd respondent, dated 16.08.2005, it is seen that the 2nd respondent has placed reliance upon the modified scheme for the Coimbatore District published in the Government Order dated 17.11.1999. This Government Order was subsequently superseded by G.O.Ms.No.136, dated 23.02.2011, whereby a new comprehensive scheme was introduced. This scheme became a subject matter of challenge in WP(MD).No.2893 of 2011. This Court through an order dated 18.04.2018, quashed the Government Order and directed the respondents to redo the exercise after complying with principles of natural justice. By virtue of this order, the comprehensive scheme that was introduced on 23.02.2011, became non-est. The order passed by the learned Single Judge was taken on appeal in WA(MD).No.13/2020 and the Division Bench through an order dated 07.01.2020, dismissed the appeal and upheld the order passed by the learned Single Judge. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the SLP that was filed by the Government also came to be dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
9.In view of the above development, there is no scheme that governs the distance factor for the purpose of running a mini bus.
10.The learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Firm A.T.B. Mehtab Majid and Co., .v. State of Madras and Another reported in AIR 1963 SC 928 and B.N.Tewari .v. Union of India and Others reported in AIR 1965 SC 1430, and submitted that once the comprehensive scheme dated 23.02.2011 is set aside by this Court, that does not automatically revive the earlier scheme dated 17.11.1999. As rightly contended by the learned counsel, once the old scheme is substituted by a new scheme, the old scheme ceased to exist and it will not get automatically revived when the new scheme is held to be invalid.
11.It is clear from the above that there is no scheme that covers the distance factor for the purpose of running a Mini Bus as on today. The old scheme was substituted by a https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/8 W.P.No.10256 of 2015 new scheme and the new scheme was quashed. Till a new scheme is introduced/notified by the respondents, the petitioner must be permitted to ply the vehicle in the existing route. It is brought to the notice of this Court that an interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner and by virtue of the same, the petitioner continues to operate the Mini Bus from Mathigiri to Hosur Bus Stand. That apart, it was also brought to the notice of this Court that the permit of the petitioner is being renewed from time to time for the said route.
12.In view of the above discussion, the impugned order passed by the 1 st respondent dated 26.03.20215 is hereby set aside and consequently, the order passed by the 2nd respondent is also quashed. The petitioner is permitted to ply the Mini Bus in the existing route. As and when any scheme is introduced/notified, it is left open to the respondents to deal with the renewal of the permit in line with the new scheme. Till then, the renewal of the permit of the petitioner can be granted as was done during the pendency of this writ petition.
13. In the result, this writ petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
23.08.2022 KP Internet: Yes Index: Yes/No https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/8 W.P.No.10256 of 2015 N.ANAND VENKATESH. J., KP To
1. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal Chennai-600 104.
2. The Regional Transport Authority Hosur @ Krishnagiri.
W.P.No.10256 of 201523.08.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/8