Madras High Court
The Secretary vs G.Rajadeen on 29 August, 2016
Author: T.Raja
Bench: T.Raja
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 29.08.2016
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.Raja
WP (MD) Nos.19243 of 2014, 19413, 19737
and 20130/2014
& M.P. (MD) Nos.1 and 2 of 2014
WP (MD) No.19243 of 2014:-
The Secretary,
The Regional Transport Authority,
Theni District,
Theni. ... Petitioner
vs.
1. G.Rajadeen
2. The Secretary,
State Transport Appellate Tribunal,
Chennai 600 104. ... Respondents
WP (MD) No.19413 of 2014:-
R.Gobinath ... Petitioner
vs.
1. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal,
City Civil Court Building,
Chennai.
2. The Regional Transport Authority,
Theni District, Theni.
3. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,
(Madurai) Limited,
Dindigul Region,
Dindigul.
4. M.Rajendran
5. G.Rajadeen ... Respondents
WP (MD) No.19737 of 2014:-
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,
(Madurai) Limited, rep. by its
General Manager,
Dindigul Region,
Dindigul. ... Petitioner
vs.
1. G.Rajendran
2. The Regional Transport Authority,
Theni District, Theni.
3. R.Gobinath
4. M.Rajendran
5. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal,
rep. By its Secretary,
Chennai-104. ... Respondents.
WP (MD) No.20130 of 2014:-
Manickam Transport
rep. by M.Rajendran,
S/o.Manickam Chettiar,
34, Old TVS Lane,
Manickam Complex,
Theni 625 531. ... Petitioner
vs.
1. The State Transport
Appellate Tribunal,
Chennai 600 104.
2. The Regional Transport Authority,
Theni, Theni District.
3. G.Rajadeen
4. R.Gopinath ... Respondents
Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the
issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the
order, dated 30.10.2014, passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal,
Chennai-104, in M.V. Appeal No.57 of 2013, and to quash the same.
!For petr. in WP (MD)
No.19413 of 2014 : Mr.A.C.Asaithambi
For petr. in WP (MD)
No.19737 of 2014 : M.P.Athimoolapandian
For petr. in WP (MD)
No.20130 of 2014 : Mr.S.Ramu
For petr. in WP (MD)
No.19243 of 2014 : Mr.A.K.Bhaskarapandian,
Special Govt. Pleader.
^For Respondent/Regional : Mr.T.R.Janarthanam,
Transport Authority Addl. Govt. Pleader.
:COMMON ORDER
Of these four Writ Petitions, W.P.MD. Nos.19413 & 20130 of 2014 are filed by two Mini Bus Operators ? Mr.R.Gopinath and Mr.M.Rajendran, while W.P.MD. Nos.19243 and 19737 of 2014 are by the Secretary, The Regional Transport Authority (in short ?RTA?), Theni, and the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (in short ?TNSTC?), Dindigul, respectively.
Inasmuch as all the above cases, questioning the legality of the Order, dated 30.10.2014, passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (in short ?Tribunal?), Chennai, revolve around common issues and points, they are taken up together for joint disposal with the consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties.
2. The main grievance of the petitioners/two mini bus operators, RTA and TNSTC being the positive direction issued by the Tribunal in the impugned order to grant Minibus Permits in favour of respondent/Rajadeen, learned counsel appearing for the TNSTC-Mr.P.Athimoolapandian, before assailing the said impugned order, made his preliminary submissions to highlight the factual scenario thus:
On 15.07.2002, one of the respondents/Rajadeen had made an Application to the RTA, Theni District, for grant of two Minibus Permits to ply on the Route viz., Theni Housing Board Colony to RMTC Nagar. As against the said Application, two of the writ petitioners herein, who are Minibus Operators, had filed their objections on the ground that already, 4 Mini Buses are plying on the same route, thus, the route is over-saturated. The RTA, Theni, after considering the Application and the Objections received, by proceedings, dated 29.10.2003, had rejected the request of Rajadeen. Aggrieved by the same, Rajadeen preferred Appeal No.1212/2003/A6 before the Tribunal and, by Orders dated 09.03.2005, the Tribunal remitted the matter back, directing the RTA to pass fresh orders in accordance with law and also by considering the public need. When Rajadeen had filed W.P. (MD) No.10252 of 2005 before this Court seeking a direction to the authorities for issuing two grant Minibus Permits in his favour, vide orders dated 17.11.2005, this Court had directed the RTA to dispose of the Application of the petitioner on merits and in accordance with law, whereupon, the RTA considered the Application and rejected the same on 14.09.2006, which prompted Rajadeen to again move the High Court by way of W.P.MD. No.9044 of 2005 and, on 06.08.2009, the said Writ Petition was dismissed with liberty to petitioner/Rajadeen to approach the Tribunal and, based on that, he had filed Appeal No.174 of 2009 before the Tribunal and, during the pendency of the said Appeal, he had also filed an Interlocutory Application to modify the Route as ?Theni Nagar Housing Board Colony to Arasu Nagar 1st Street Colony via Samatharmapuram? on the ground that the modified route is well within the norms prescribed by relevant Government Orders and that more vacancies are also available there. On 03.03.2010, the Tribunal remanded the matter by observing, if all the norms prescribed by the Government Orders, Motor Vehicles Act and Rules are complied with by Rajadeen, subject to seniority and vacancy, the claim of Rajadeen can be re-considered by the RTA.
Subsequent thereto, the RTA had re-considered the request and once again, rejected the Application by orders dated 11.01.2011. Aggrieved thereby, Rajadeen had filed W.P.(MD) No.826 of 2011 before this Court on the ground that the RTA passed the rejection order without taking into account the order of the Tribunal, dated 03.03.2010, passed in M.V.Appeal No.174 of 2009. This Court, by orders dated 27.06.2011, by holding that the RTA failed to give any reference to the Government Orders, Motor Vehicles Act and Rules, had set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter back to the RTA to pass fresh orders on the Application of Rajadeen in the light of the orders, dated 03.03.2010, passed by the Tribunal in M.V. Appeal No.174 of 2009. Consequently, the RTA summoned Rajadeen for the personal hearing fixed, however, the latter failed to attend the same, upon which, with the available records, the RTA had considered his Application and rejected it on 20.09.2011. Aggrieved by the rejection order, an Appeal was filed before the Tribunal in M.V. Appeal No.122 of 2011. After scrutinizing the records, the Tribunal, by orders, dated 01.10.2012, recorded a finding that when Rajadeen had submitted a written request, dated 02.09.2011, to the RTA to grant an adjournment as his Advocate could not represent so as to express the true facts for grant of the Minibus Permit, the RTA had ignored the same and, after so finding, had set aside the order of the RTA, dated 27.09.2011, again remanding the matter back for fresh consideration by the RTA in accordance with law and, as per the Judgment, dated 03.03.2010, passed by the Tribunal in M.V.Appeal No.174 of 2009 and also in the light of the Order, dated 27.06.2011, passed by the High Court in W.P. (MD) No.826 of 2011. Thereafter, the RTA re-considered the matter and, vide Orders dated 16.04.2013, had rejected the Application of Rajadeen. As against the same, Rajadeen had once again approached the Tribunal by way of M.V. Appeal No.57 of 2013 on the ground that when a specific direction was given in the remand order by the Tribunal, directing the RTA to consider grant of two Minibus Permits in accordance with law, within a stipulated period, without even considering the said aspect, the RTA had mechanically rejected the Application and as such, the said order is not sustainable in law. Ultimately, by the impugned order, dated 30.10.2014, the Tribunal held that the RTA repeatedly rejected the requests of Rajadeen without following the order of the Tribunal and, by allowing the said appeal in part, it issued a direction to the RTA to grant Minibus Permits to Rajadeen, in accordance with law subject to seniority and vacancy.
3. After briefing the factual scenario, learned counsel would submit that a reading of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal would show, while on the one hand the Tribunal directed the RTA to issue the Minibus Permit in favour of Rajadeen, on the other hand, simultaneously, it also remitted the matter back to the RTA. According to him, when the Tribunal has decided to remand back the matter, a synchronous positive direction for issuing the permit in favour of Rajadeen should not have been given and hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. He referred to the Report, dated 18.12.2013, of the RTO (Regional Transport Officer), Theni, to the effect that, in the Served Sector with 3.6 Kms. stretch, already, there are many Mini Buses, private and Government Buses in operation for the utility of the public in the area and that the Un-served Sector with a stretch of 2.1 Kms., for which, Rajadeen seeks grant of Permits is an area which can be used only by pedestrians. That being so, only with an intention to procure a permit for plying the Mini Bus, Rajadeen is repeatedly making the Applications and, on the face of a report, dated 18.12.2013, submitted by the Regional Transport Officer, exhibiting the ground reality, even if a permit is granted, it would not be possible for the applicant/Rajadeen to ply the Mini Bus on the route. Unfortunately, the said Reports were not properly appreciated by the Tribunal before issuing the positive direction in favour of Rajadeen.
4. Learned counsel also referred to the Report, dated 17.12.2013, of the Motor Vehicle Inspector ? Grade.I, Theni, and submitted that, in the said Report, it is clearly indicated that cement slabs have been laid in Murugankoil Street, a very narrow road, and also electric lines are passing through Lakshmi Nagar and Vasuki Nagar, as a result, when the said areas through which Rajadeen seeks to operate the Mini Buses cannot even be allowed for riding a Bullock-Cart, the action of the Tribunal in directing the RTA to issue permits for operation of Mini Buses in such a narrow/congested/ineffectual route is wholly unwarranted. The Tribunal miserably failed to make an exhaustive analysis of various vital aspects adverted to in the reports touching not only the viability of operation but also safety of the residents in the area. He added that if Vasan Nagar, Murugankovil Street and Lakshmi Nagar, being congested areas, are excluded, the un-served area would be only 0.6 Kms., for which, a Minibus Permit cannot be issued.
5. Continuing his arguments, learned counsel would submit that the Tribunal failed to consider the provision under Section 99(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act (newly inserted by Act 54 of 1994 with effect from 14.11.1994) which states that notwithstanding anything contained in Sub- Section (1) of Section 99, when a proposal is published under the Sub- Section, from the date of such proposal, no permit shall be granted to any person except a temporary permit during the pendency of the proposal. In that perspective, when a Draft Notification for a new Comprehensive Scheme was published by the Government on 10.03.2010, from which date, the said Scheme was deemed to have come into effect, no Minibus Permit can be directed to be issued. Thus, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is in clear violation of Section 99 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Hence, this is a fit case for interference by this Court, he pleaded.
6. M/s.A.C.Asaithambi and S.Ramu, learned counsels appearing for the writ petitioners/private Minibus Operators, while adopting the above submissions made by Mr.P.Athimoolapandian, would additionally submit as follows:-
After rejection of the Applications of Rajadeen for grant of Minibus Permit to ply on the route Theni Housing Board Colony to RMTC Colony, during pendency of M.V.Appeal No.174 of 2009 before the Tribunal, Rajadeen had filed an Interlocutory Application for modification of the route. In this regard, Section 72(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act provides that subject to the provisions of Section 71, a Regional Transport Authority may, on an Application made to it under Section 70, grant a stage carriage permit in accordance with the application or with such modifications as it deems fit, or refuse to grant such a permit, provided that no such permit shall be granted in respect of any route or area not specified in the Application. In the light of the said provision, the RTA is entitled to determine itself such modifications fit to the route applied and grant permit with modifications; while so, in the present case, when the route in question is already well served with 494 singles per day by Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Buses and 165 singles by private operators besides more number of Town Service/State Buses, the RTA rightly decided not to grant any new permit. Further, the new comprehensive scheme in G.O. Ms.No.136 (H) Tr.III Department came into effect from 23.02.2011, thereby, any pending application which was filed under the provisions of 1999 scheme but not implemented then had become redundant. This vital aspect has been however overlooked by the Tribunal. Further, the modified route is not fit at all for operating Mini Buses, because, in Murugankoil Street, cement slabbing has been laid, and electric posts and lines are passing through Lakshmi Nagar & Vasuki Nagar and more- over, the streets are so narrow that allowing operation of Mini Buses on the modified route would endanger the safety of the residents in the locality and also the road-users. Such ground reality exhibited in the reports of the Regional Transport Officer as well as the Motor Vehicles Inspector have not been considered at all by the Tribunal before issuing the positive direction, hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside, they argued.
7. Per contra, Mr.M.Palani, learned counsel appearing for Rajadeen, would submit that in each district, a maximum of 250 Minibus permits are earmarked and the Minibus Permit is granted for a maximum distance of 20 Kms. on the un-served rural area, out of which, 4 Kms. is on the served Sector. Based on the approved scheme, an Application was moved on 16.07.2002 before the RTA, Theni, who is the competent Authority to receive and process the same for the grant of permit. Pursuant to such Application filed by Rajadeen, the Motor Vehicle Inspector also, by report, dated 25.11.2002, stated that the said route complied with the distance norms prescribed for Mini Bus operations under the Scheme 1999. Therefore, in the light of the said Report, the 2nd respondent/RTA had no option except to grant permit to Rajadeen if he satisfied the requirements of all the norms prescribed. Adding further, Mr.Palani would contend that, as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, grant of permit is a Rule while rejection is an exception. In other words, rejection is resorted to only when the Application is not maintainable in law or it suffers from any other legal infirmities. While considering the Application for grant of permit, the Authority functioning under the Act need not go into the aspect as to whether there is competition in respect of the route involved, for, the Apex Court, in Mithilesh Garg and others vs. Union of India and others (AIR 1992 SC 443) emphatically ruled that grant of permit is a rule and rejection is an exception. Therefore, the authority is bound to grant the permit except in the following circumstances viz.,
i)where the served sector route exceeds 4 Km., and
ii) in case where the permit, if granted, exceeds 250 limit prescribed under the scheme on the date of consideration.
In that perspective, Rajadeen made the Application for grant of Minibus Permit and, as such, there was no impediment for the grant of Minibus Permit in favour of Rajadeen. However, opposing the request of Rajadeen, the other two Minibus Operators/writ petitioners, who are operating on a part of the route but not on the un-served sector, objected to the grant of permit to Rajadeen and, by acceding to those objections, the Application made by Rajadeen was rejected. Aggrieved by the same, a statutory appeal was filed before the Tribunal in Appeal No.1212 of 2003. The said Appeal was allowed on 09.03.2005 with a finding that the ground for rejection viz., the grant of permit would affect other operators on a portion of the route and the road is also narrow, is totally alien to the scheme of the Act. Consequently, a direction was issued to the RTA to grant the Minibus Permit if any vacancy is available. While so, both the Transport Corporation as well as the objectors/two Private Operators did not even challenge the said order of the Tribunal, thereby, they allowed it to become final. But unfortunately, the RTA did not take up the Application for consideration in the light of the direction issued by the Tribunal. The inaction shown by the RTA impelled Rajadeen to file W.P.(MD) No.1052 of 2005 before this Court, seeking a direction against the RTA for implementing the orders of the Tribunal made in M.V. Appeal No.1212 of 2003. Only after issuance of a direction by this Court, the Authority took up the Application for consideration, but, wrongly rejected the same on 14.09.2006, citing the reason that on the un-served sector, already Minibuses are plying and if the same is taken into account, the served sector would exceed 4 Kms and hence, permit cannot be issued.
8. Adding further, Mr.Palani would submit that when the earlier order passed by the Tribunal on 09.03.2005 to grant permit in favour of Rajadeen became final since the Private Bus Operators and the Transport Corporation did not choose to challenge the same, the RTA, after the matter remitted back to it, had erroneously issued notices to those unnecessary parties and heard them, which approach is wholly untenable. Aggrieved by such approach of the RTA in issuing Notice to the unnecessary parties, Rajadeen filed W.P. MD No.9044 of 2005, however, the said Writ Petition was dismissed with liberty to invoke the alternative remedy before the Tribunal within a period of two weeks' time. Thereafter, Rajadeen had preferred Appeal No.174 of 2009 before the Tribunal, however, in order to get over the bar created by a Division Bench Judgment, dated 02.08.2006, of this Court in W.A. Nos.135 and 136 of 2006, Rajadeen sought to modify the route by filing an Interlocutory Application in I.A. No.35 of 2010 so as to bring it within 4 Km. norms of served sector and prayed for grant of permit on the modified route. When the Interlocutory Application came up for consideration before the Tribunal, after notice, the Departmental Representative of the RTA had appeared and he did not raise any objection for the Modification Application. Therefore, ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the Appeal itself (M.V.Appeal No.174 of 2009) on 03.03.2010 on condition that the norms prescribed by the Government Order, the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules shall be complied with by Rajadeen and further, the grant shall be subject to seniority and vacancy within 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the Order. However, instead of complying with the Order passed by the Appellate Tribunal, as usual, the RTA had rejected the Application by Orders dated 11.01.2011 on the ground that modification is not in accordance with the provisions of the M.V. Act. Since the RTA had no regard at all to comply with any of the directions issued by the Tribunal and of this Court, Rajadeen filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal in M.V. No.122 of 2011, wherein, the Tribunal categorically held on 01.10.2012 that the RTA is bound by the remand order and remanded the matter to consider and pass orders in the light of the Tribunal's Order, dated 03.03.2010, passed in M.V. Appeal No.174 of 2009 and also as per the direction of the High Court in the Order, dated 27.06.2011, issued in W.P. MD. No.826 of 2011. Despite such clear order, on 16.04.2013, the RTA again rejected the Application of Rajadeen. Thus, in spite of repeated directions by the Tribunal, when the RTA resorted to mechanical rejection of the Applications of Rajadeen, ultimately, while disposing of the appeal preferred by Rajadeen in M.V. No.57 of 2013, by the impugned order dated 30.10.2014, the Tribunal thought it proper and necessary to issue a positive direction to the RTA for issuing the permit in favour of Rajadeen and the said Order, being completely in order, there is no need for interference therewith.
9. Further, the repeated rejection on the part of the RTA for grant of permit in favour of Rajadeen on the basis of the objections received from existing operators cannot be sustained in the light of the ruling rendered in Manoharan, P. vs. P.Ramasamy and others (2002-WLR-136) to the effect that the existing operators or the Corporation cannot be aggrieved by the grant of permits to Mini Buses as their operation not exceeding four kilometers of served sector will not prejudice their interest; moreover, in some cases, the served sector may be for one or two kilometers and the commuters going on a Mini Bus are rural people and they may not normally go on the regular stage carrier route buses. In that perspective, the learned counsel would state that the RTA ought not not have mechanically rejected the Applications.
10. By referring to the Interlocutory Application (I.A. No.35 of 2010) filed before the Tribunal during the pendency of statutory appeal in M.V.Appeal No.174 of 2009, Mr.Palani would again submit that the said Application was for modification of the route so as to bring it within the purview of the served sector norms and that, when the same was allowed and the positive order having not been challenged and thereby it had become final, even now, equally, it is not open either for the RTA or the Private Operators to raise a plea that the modification is contrary to law.
11. Responding to a contention put forth by the other side that from 10.03.2010, the new comprehensive scheme had come into force and hence, no Minibus Permit could be issued having regard to Section 99(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, Mr.Palani would cite a decision of the Apex Court in A.A.Calton v. Director of Education (1983-3-SCC-33) to highlight the proposition laid down therein that existing rights cannot be taken away by giving retrospective effect to a statutory provision. He would state that, in the said case before the Supreme Court, proceedings for the selection had commenced in the year 1973 and after the Deputy Director had disapproved the recommendations made by the Selection Committee twice the Director acquired the jurisdiction to make an appointment from amongst the qualified candidates who had applied for the vacancy in question and, at the instance of the appellant therein in the earlier writ petition filed by him, the High Court had directed the Director to exercise that power. But, although the Director in the case before the Supreme Court exercised that power subsequent to August 18, 1975 on which date, the amendment came into force, it cannot be said that the selection made by him was illegal since the amending law had no retrospective effect, because, it did not have any effect on the proceeding which had commenced prior to August 18, 1975. Moreover, such proceedings had to be continued in accordance with law as it stood at the commencement of the said proceedings. In the light of the same, learned counsel would add that, in the present case also, orders were passed on the Interlocutory Application on 03.03.2010, whereas, the Draft Notification for the new Comprehensive Scheme was published under G.O.Ms.No.271, Home Tr III Department, on 10.03.2010. Further, the new scheme actually came into effect only from 23.02.2011, therefore, either the proposal for modification of the approved scheme or the modified area approved scheme or the comprehensive area approved scheme was not a bar to implement the order of the Tribunal by the RTA. Thus, the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be construed as violative of Section 99(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. After so submitting, learned counsel has ultimately pleaded for dismissal of the writ petitions and to sustain the Order passed by the Tribunal.
12. Heard Mr.A.K.Bhaskarapandian, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the RTA/Petitioner in WP (MD) No.19243 of 2014.
13. I have carefully considered the rival submissions advanced on either side and perused the materials available on record.
14. At the first instance, it would be just and necessary to deal with W.P. MD. No.19243 of 2014, filed by the Secretary/Regional Transport Authority, Theni. It is not known as to how the said authority, a quasi- judicial authority and a Subordinate to the Tribunal/appellate authority, can maintain a writ petition posing itself as an ?affected party? to challenge the orders passed by the appellate authority. The endeavour of an original/quasi-judicial authority like the petitioner should be only to implement the orders passed by the appellate authority/Tribunal. In other words, as there was no right, vested in the Secretary/RTA, infringed or prejudiced or adversely affected as a direct consequence of the order impugned, he is not an aggrieved person having any locus standi to launch the writ proceedings as an affected party. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to the following observation of this Court in the Regional Transport Authority, Namakkal Region v. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras & 3 Others (1994-I-LW 509):-
? 35. Before parting with this case, it is my duty to point out that a quasi- judicial authority like the petitioner, who is held to be a person not aggrieved, cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction challenging the order of the Tribunal. A statutory authority has to act with some sort of responsibility in filing the writ petitions challenging the order of the Tribunal. It cannot be gainsaid that the petitioner has no personal interest or a person aggrieved. It is the concern of the aggrieved persons to take steps challenging the order of the Tribunal. The petitioner cannot claim to be a mouth-piece of the public representing the consciousness of the general public. Being a public authority exercising statutory function, the petitioner is expected to act fairly with a sense of discretion. It passes my comprehension as to why the petitioner should assume the role of a person aggrieved and challenge the order of the Tribunal and thereby indulge in vexatious litigation and wasteful expenditure. In the instant case, the reason for filing the writ petitions is obvious.
36. Despite the catena of decisions of this Court taking a consistent view that the persons like the petitioner are not persons aggrieved and therefore, cannot challenge the order of the Tribunal, the present writ petitions have been filed which, in my opinion, are not only vexatious but also motivated.
.,. Hence, I am of the view, that all the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. It is useful to refer in this context the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in State of Maharashtra v. Uttamrao Rayala Nikam, (1994) 2 SCC
116. In that case. Special Leave Petition was filed against the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, which found that the respondent reached the efficiency bar. Earlier, he was compulsorily retired but by the order of the Court, he remained in service. Under the Rules made by the Government, the process should be made well in advance and record should be considered and a positive order should be made by the competent authority to pass an order stopping giving the increment due to the efficiency bar. On 14-9-1984, the Supervisory Officer passed an order stopping the efficiency bar by which time he had already passed three years which he would have been entitled to in the normal course. The Supreme Court while rejecting the appeal of the State of Maharashtra, has observed that the Tribunal has rightly pointed out that the stopping of crossing the efficiency bar is arbitrary, unjust and unfair. Yet, the State of Maharashtra has chosen to file the Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court. It is useful to extract the concluding remarks in the above case, which run thus:
"Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly pointed out that stopping of crossing the efficiency bar is arbitrary and we hold it unjust and unfair. Yet the petitioner has chosen with no responsibility in filing the SLP in this Court with no ghost of a chance of success. Therefore, the SLP was filed needlessly and irresponsibly. Accordingly, the SLP is dismissed with the exemplary cost of Rs.5,000/-. This amount should be deducted from the personal pay of the officer/officers who has/have recommended to file this SLP. The Chief Secretary, Maharashtra Government is directed to deduct this amount from the personal pay of the officer/ officers concerned and send it to the account of the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee which would correspond with the Chief Secretary for collection of the amount."
37. The observation made by the Supreme Court in the above cited case is equally applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. As pointed out by me in paragraphs supra, the present writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner by indulging in vexatious litigation and wasteful expenditure. The writ petitions were filed needlessly.? The present case by the quasi-judicial authority posing as an aggrieved person to challenge the Orders of the appellate authority/Tribunal being a clear vexatious litigation, the same cannot be entertained at all, hence, W.P.MD.No.19243 of 2014 is dismissed accordingly.
15. Coming to the other writ petitions, it is seen that the Application filed by Rajadeen for grant of Minibus Permits to ply on the route ?Theni Housing Board Colony to RMTC Colony? was negatived by the Regional Transport Authority, Theni District, vide orders, dated 29.10.2003. Aggrieved thereby, Rajadeen had preferred Statutory Appeal before the Tribunal, Chennai, in M.V.Appeal No.1212/A6/2003. The Tribunal, after hearing the Objectors, Departmental Representative and also the counsel for the applicant/Rajadeen had allowed the Appeal by Orders, dated 09.03.2005, by holding that the reason for rejection assigned by the RTA that the grant would affect other operators, operating on a portion of the route and that the road is also so narrow to permit plying of Minibuses, is untenable. Ultimately, the Tribunal remitted back the matter to the RTA for fresh disposal to find out whether there was any vacancy available for grant of permit. No doubt, the said direction has not been complied with. Moreover, the Objectors in the said Appeal viz., the TNSTC and two other Minibus Operators, did not challenge the said order, thereby, the same had become final. But, since the RTA did not come forward to take up the matter for disposal of the same in the light of the above direction issued by the Tribunal, Rajadeen had filed W.P. (MD) No.10252 of 2005, wherein, by orders dated 17.11.2005, the RTA was directed to dispose of the Application submitted by Rajadeen within the time stipulated. Consequent thereto, the RTA took up the matter, however, again, by orders dated, 14.09.2006, the request of Rajadeen came to be negatived, whereupon, Rajadeen again approached this Court by filing W.P.MD.No.9044 of 2005, wherein, by orders dated 06.08.2009, Rajadeen was given liberty to approach the Tribunal. Subsequent thereto, M.V. Appeal No.174 of 2009 was preferred by Rajadeen before the Tribunal and, during the pendency of the said Appeal, in order to get over the embargo created by the decision of a Division Bench, dated 02.08.2006, in W.A. Nos.135 and 136 of 2006, Rajadeen filed an Interlocutory Application in I.A. No.35 of 2010 seeking to modify the route so as to bring it within 4 Kms. norms of served sector and prayed for grant of permit on the modified route mentioned. Even though the prayer was allowed, the RTA, on remand did not positively consider the request, thereby, ultimately, the matter was taken to the Tribunal by way of M.V.Appeal No.57 of 2013, wherein, the impugned direction was issued. At this juncture, one has to see as to whether the Tribunal has issued the said positive direction after taking into account all the necessary factors that should be necessarily gone into while assessing a plea for grant of permit. In that regard, it is relevant to refer to the following report, dated 17.12.2013, submitted by the Motor Vehicle Inspector- Grade.I, Theni, as to the nature of the modified route:-
?Njdp `Trpq; NghHL fhydp Kjy; muR efH Kjy; njU tiu rpw;We;J topj;jlk; 17.12.2013 md;W jpU.T.C.fNzrRg;gpukzpad;> Nkhl;lhH thfd Ma;thsH> epiy I, Njdp> mtHfshy; Ma;T nra;ag;gl;lJ Ma;twpf;if gpd;tUkhW :-
Nkw;gb topj;jlj;jpy; `Trpq; NghHL fhydp Kjy; yl;Rkp jpNal;lH tiu Vw;fdNt ehd;F rpw;We;Jfs; mDkjp toq;fg;gl;L ,af;fg;gl;L tUfpwJ.
1.TN60/E 2203 PC 48/MB/2011 Valid 14.03.2016 (Owner R.Gobinath)
2.TN60/B 5252 PC 30/MB/2011 Valid 11.02.2016 (Owner R.Gobinath)
3.TN60/D 8357 PC 46/MB/2011 Valid 21.03.2016 (Owner M.R.Rajendran)
4.TN60/D 8365 PC 47/MB/2011 Valid 21.03.2016 (Owner M.R.Rajendran) NkYk; yl;Rkp jpNal;lH Kjy; NeU rpiy topahf muR efH gphpT tiuapy; cs;s served sector 2.5 fp.kP jpz;Lf;fy; Fksp Njrpa neLQ;rhiyahFk;. ,e;j topj;jlj;jpy; 5 epkplj;jpw;F xU NgUe;J kw;Wk; rpw;We;Jfs; ,af;fg;gLfpwJ.
yl;Rkp efH Nghl;Nlh FWfyhd tisT rpw;We;J jpUk;g ,aytpy;iy yl;Rkp efH Nghl;Nlh FWfyhd tisT rpw;We;J jpUk;g ,aytpy;iy Nghl;Nlh FWfyhd re;J ,Ugf;fKk; cs;s tPLfspd; nrhe;j fhHfs; kw;Wk; ,yFuf thfdq;fis ,wf;Ftjw;F rhpTfs; mikf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ. (Slopes) kpdp g]; ,af;f ,ayhJ yl;Rkp efH Nghl;Nlh njUre;Jfspd; nkhj;j ePsk; - 300 kPl;lH mfyk; - 2.4 kPl;lH Kjy; 3 kPl;lH tiu jho;thd kpd;fk;gpfs;
njUtpd; mfyk; FiwT kpdp g]; nry;yNt ,ayhJ njUtpd; filrp gFjp tiu kpdp g]; nrd;W jpUk;g ,ayhJ ,t;topj;jlj;jpy; cs;s unserved sector cs;s yl;Rkp efH Ma;T nra;ag;gl;lJ. jpz;Lf;fy; Fksp Njrpa neLQ;rhiyapy; ,lJGwj;jpy; ,Uf;Fk; 300 kPl;lH msT ePsNk cs;s xU njU re;J MFk;. ,e;j njU re;Jtpw;Fs; rpw;We;Jfs; nry;yNt ,ayhj epiyapy; mfyk; Fiwthf cs;sJ. njUtpd; nkhj;j ePsk; 300 kPl;lH. mfyk; 3 kPl;lH Kjy; 2.4 kPl;lH tiu cs;sJ. rpw;We;jpd; mfyk; 2.5kP Kjy; 2.6 kPl;lH tiu cs;sJ. FWfyhd tisTfspy; thfdk; jpUk;g Kbahj epiy cs;sJ. njU re;jpd; filrp tiu nrd;W kpdp g];i] jpUg;g ,ayhJ. yl;Rkp efH gFjpapy; midtUk; nrhe;j thfdq;fs; itj;jpUg;gjhy; gazhspfNs ,y;iy vdyhk;. njUtpd; FWf;fk; neLf;Fkhf kpd;rhu fk;gpfs; jho;thf nry;fpd;wd. vdNt> yl;Rkp efH gFjpapy; rpw;We;Jfs; ,af;f Kbahj epiy cs;sJ.
thRfp efH Nghl;Nlh FbapUg;GfNs mjpfk; ,y;yhj gFjpahFk;
vdNt gazhspfs; ,y;iy vdyhk;.
thRfp efH Nghl;Nlh njUtpd; nkhj;j ePsk; - 200 kPl;lH MFk;
njU mfyk; - 2.6 kPl;lH Kjy; 3 kPl;lH tiu njUtpd; KbT tiu kpdp g]; nrd;W kPz;Lk; jpUk;g ,ayhj epiy cs;sJ thRfp efH: ,JTk; yl;Rkp efH njUtpw;F mLj;jjhf 100 kPl;lH njhiytpy; cs;sJ. njUtpd; ePsk; 200 kPl;lH> mfyk; 2.5 kPl;lH Kjy; 3 kPl;lH tiu kl;LNk cs;sJ. rpw;We;Jfs; nry;y Kbahj epiyapy; njUf;fs; cs;sJ. rpw;We;jpd; mfyKk;> njUtpd; mfyKk; xNu msthfNth (2.5 kPl;lH) my;yJ rpw;We;J mjpfg;gbahf mfykhfNth (2.6 kPl;lH) cs;sJ. ,e;j thRfp efH gFjpapYk; rpw;We;Jfs; ,af;fNt KbahJ.
NkYk; jpz;Lf;fy; FKsp neLQ;rhiyapy; tyJGwkhf yl;Rkp efUf;F vjphpy; gphpAk; njd;wy; efh; 200 kPl;lH J}uk; cs;s xU 'g" tbtkhd njUthFk;. ,e;j njUtpy; RkhH 20 tPLfs; kl;LNk cs;sJ. ,q;F rpw;We;Jfs; nrd;W tu NghJkhd mstpy; njU cs;sJ. elf;Fk; njhiytpy; gpujhdrhiy cs;sjhy; ,q;F kpdp g]; Njitapy;iy.
muR efH fhydp> KUfd; Nfhtpy; njU Nghl;Nlh FWfyhd njU gf;fthl;bNyh> vjphpNyh NtW thfdq;fs; tu ,ayhJ Nghl;Nlh ,t;topj;jlj;jpy; cs;s rpW ghyj;jpy; ,Urf;fu thfdk; kw;Wk; Nkhl;lhH fhH kl;LNk nry;y ,aYk;. kpdp g]; njhlHe;J nry;Yk; NghJ ghyk; cile;J Nghf;Ftuj;J ghjpf;Fk; mghak; cs;sJ.
muR efH fhydp> KUfd; Nfhtpy; njU Nghl;Nlh njUtpd; nkhj;j ePsk; 500 kPl;lH MFk;
FWfyhd tisTfs; kpdp g]; jpUk;ghJ KUfd; Nfhtpy; njU Nghl;Nlh FWfyhd njU kpdp g]; nry;Yk; NghJ gf;fthl;bNyh> vjphpNyh NtW thfdq;fs; nry;y ,ayhJ.
gazpfs; ,U rf;fu thfdk; Xl;bdhy; tpgj;Jf;Fs;shFk; mghak; cs;sJ.
mLj;jjhf Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;s muR efH fhydp> KUfd; Nfhtpy; njU jpz;Lf;fy; FKsp Njrpa neLQ;rhiyapy; ,Ue;J tyJGwk; gphpAk; 1 fp.kP. ePsk; cs;s njUthFk;. njUtpd; mfyk; 3.4 kPl;lH Kjy; 2.5 kPl;lH tiu cs;sJ. ,J neUf;fkhf tPLfs; fl;lg;gl;Ls;s xU FbapUg;G gFjpahFk;. FWfyhd tisTfs; cs;s ,e;j njUtpYk; rpw;We;J nry;y ,ayhJ. njUtpd; mfyk; rpw;We;jpd; mfyk; ,uz;Lk; Vwf;Fiwa xNu msthf cs;sJ. ,e;j njUtpy; rpw;We;J ,af;f KbahJ.
NkYk; NkNy Fwpg;gpl;Ls; unserved sectory; Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;s J}uk; 2.1 fp.kP MFk;. ,it midj;Jk; mjpf Nghf;Ftuj;J trjp cs;s jpz;Lf;fy; FKsp Njrpa neLQ;rhiyapy; ,UGwKk; mjpfgl;rkhf 500 kPl;lH ePsj;jpy; cs;sJ. ,e;j midj;J FWfyhd njUf;fspYk; rpw;We;Jfs; ,af;f KbahJ. ,it midj;Jk; ,izf;fg;gl;Ls;s Gifg;glq;fs; %yk; tpsf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ midj;J njUf;fspYk; ,Ue;J nghJkf;fs; kpf vspjhf ele;J te;J Njrpa neUQ;rhiapy; ,af;fg;gLk; NgUe;J kw;Wk; rpw;We;Jfspy; gazk; nra;ayhk;. vdNt> ,e;j topj;jlj;jpy; Gjpajhf kpdp g]; mDkjprPl;L toq;f VJthf ,y;iy. nghJkf;fSf;F kpdp g]; trjp NjitAk; ,y;iy vd;w tpguj;ij gzpTld; rkHg;gpf;fpd;Nwd;.
- sd -
Nkhl;lhH thfd Ma;thsH epiy1> Njdp.?
16. The above Report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector would show that the modified route is almost full of narrow streets/lanes not possible for a Mini Bus to take turns/negotiate the curves. It is also indicated therein that in one of the places covered by the modified route viz., Lakshmi Nagar, electric lines are passing at a low-altitude, therefore, plying of Mini Buses would pose a real danger. In regard to Vasuki Nagar, there is an adverse observation that the width of the road and that of a Mini Bus almost being the same, operation of Mini Bus cannot be allowed through that area. Referring to a mini-bridge at Arasu Nagar Colony/Murugankoil Street, it is stated that the said bridge, which is being used only by light motor vehicles, if allowed to be used by Mini Buses, may get collapsed. There is also one more report, dated 18.12.2013, in this regard by the Regional Transport Officer, Theni, and a joint reading of the two reports would show that if Vasan Nagar, Murugankovil Street and Lakshmi Nagar, being congested areas, are excluded, the un-served area would be only 0.6 Km. In other words, from the total un-served area of 2.1 Kms, if the congested area of 1.5 km. is excluded, a Mini Bus permit cannot be granted for the remaining un- served area of 0.6 Km.
17. This Court, after perusing the exhaustive reports submitted in respect of the modified route, is of the view, of course, the Tribunal is justified in finding fault with the approach of the RTA in not showing the due obeisance to the direction issued by it, however, equally, it ought to have taken into account the risk factors including narrowness of the road, passing of low-height power-lines, possible damage to the cement-slabs on the road, safety of the pedestrians/road users, etc. before issuing a positive direction through the impugned order.
18. It may be mentioned here that allowing the operation of Mini Buses in rural areas, where, the transport corporation vehicles have no operation, is definitely a welcome measure, for, it promotes the public interest of rural folks suffering for want of transport facilities. That is the reason why, the existing Minibus operations have been welcomed by the rural people, agriculturists and students in remote areas in order to advance their education, economic and social activities. This Court is also aware of the fact that public interest demands that the authorities must give effect to the policy of the Government and implement the provisions of the Act with urgency and expediency. At the same time, one should not be oblivious to examine the other side relating to vital elements like ? safety, viability, risk factors, etc. In this regard, when the Report submitted by the Motor Vehicle Inspector, which is exhaustive in nature, and also the one submitted by the Regional Transport Authority, are taken into account, it is apparent that the negative factors are outweighing and hence, endorsing the decision for grant of permit is not desirable. The reports are very specific that owing to the narrowness of the roads' width, the low-level passing of electric wires, the possibility of damage to the cement slabs, the inconvenience to the road-users/public/residents in the modified route, etc., grant of permit to operate Mini Bus is absolutely unwarranted. This Court, as already pointed out, though does not find fault with the Tribunal in frowning upon the indifferent attitude of the RTA, in the same line, is not able to endorse the positive direction on the face of the numerous negative factors adverted to in the Reports. When there is a question of choosing between public interest and public safety, it goes without saying that this Court would always cling by the side of public safety. In that view of the matter, this Court inclines to set aside the order passed by the Tribunal.
19. In fine, W.P. No.19243 of 2004 is dismissed and W.P. MD. Nos.19413, 19737 and 20130/2014 are ordered, setting aside the impugned order, dated 30.10.2014, passed by the Tribunal in M.V.No.57 of 2013. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions stand closed.
To The Secretary, State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 600 104..