Madras High Court
M.Sundaram vs The Regional Transport Authority on 27 June, 2022
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
W.P(MD).No.13252 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 27.06.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
W.P(MD).No.13252 of 2022
and
W.M.P(MD).No.9408 of 2022
M.Sundaram ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Regional Transport Authority,
O/o. The Regional Transport Authority,
Srirangam Region,
Tiruchirappalli.
2.The Regional Transport Officer,
Srirangam,
Tiruchirappalli District. ...Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records relating to the impugned order passed by the first respondent vide
R.No.21460/B1/2009, dated 25.01.2020 and the consequential order passed
by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Vide R.No.782/2021 dated
23.09.2021 and quash the same and consequently directing the first
respondent to renew the Transport Permit No.4/TRY/1999 in respect of Stage
Carriage Mini Bus for the route from Uppiliyapuram to Periyasamy Kovil via
Kottapalaym and B.Mettur in Tiruchirappalli District for three spell period
from 20.03.2009 to 19.03.2024.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/10
W.P(MD).No.13252 of 2022
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Shanmugaraja Sethupathi
For Respondents : Mr.P.Subbaraj
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
The petitioner has granted permit to operate stage carriage Mini Bus from Uppiliyapuram to Periyasamy Koil via Kottapalayam and B.Mettur in Tiruchirappalli District vide Permit No.4/TRY/1999. The permit was subsequently transferred in the name of petitioner by the order of the first respondent, dated 04.06.2003. Thereafter, the permit was renewed periodically for the period from 19.03.2004 to 18.03.2009 by the first respondent vide proceedings, dated 30.05.2005. On 31.12.2007, the permit in respect of Mini Bus bearing Registration No.TN-59-D-4388 was replaced by another Mini Bus bearing Registration No.TN-45-N-0259. The petitioner operating the Mini Bus as per the permit condition without any default during the permit period.
2. The petitioner made an application for renewal of permit on 04.05.2009 for the period from 20.03.2009 to 19.03.2014 and the same was rejected by the first respondent by order, dated 10.06.2009 on the ground that renewal application was not submitted within the time limit. i.e., 15 days prior to the expiry of the permit. The petitioner challenged the above order before https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/10 W.P(MD).No.13252 of 2022 this Court by filing W.P.No.6791 of 2009. The said writ petition was allowed by holding that the reason assigned by the first respondent is not proper and set aside the order of the first respondent, dated 10.06.2009 and remitted the matter to decide on merits and in accordance with law.
3. Again, the renewal application was rejected by the first respondent, dated 13.02.2010 for the reason of delay. Thereafter, the petitioner filed W.P.No.2296 of 2010 and the same was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy to file appeal before the Tribunal. Thereafter, the petitioner filed W.A.No.825 of 2010 before this court. This Court, by order dated 06.09.2011 passed the following order:
“7. Therefore, we are of the view that inasmuch as the direction issued by this Court, which has become final between the parties, has not been complied with by the respondent No.1, the order impugned is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, we set aside the order, dated 13.03.2010 passed by the first respondent. The first respondent is directed to decide the renewal application filed by the appellant dated 14.12.2009 on merits and in accordance with law within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
8. It is made clear that while deciding the said appliaction, the first respondent is directed to issue notice to both the appellant as well as the third respondent and then decide the renewal application on its own merits and in accordance with law. The writ appeal is allowed accordingly. No costs.”
4. The first respondent again rejected the renewal appliaction, by order, dated 15.07.2015. In spite of the directions issued by the Division Bench of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/10 W.P(MD).No.13252 of 2022 this Court to the first respondent to dispose the renewal appliaction within a period of four weeks by order, dated 06.09.2011, the first respondent passed the order only on 15.07.2015, after lapse of more than four years. Thereafter, the petitioner filed appeal before the Transport Appellate Tribunal vide M.V.Appeal No.126 of 2015 challenging the order of the first respondent, dated 15.07.2015. The appeal was allowed and the order of the first respondent was set aside by order, dated 01.11.2018 on condition to pay a sum of RS.10,000/- as cost for delay in submitting the renewal appliaction. The petitioner could remit the cost within the time frame.
5. The first respondent again rejected the renewal application by order, dated 15.03.2019 on the ground that the petitioner not remitted the cost within the time frame. The petitioner filed other appeal before the Appellate Tribunal Vide M.V.Appeal.No.10 of 2019 challenging the order of the first respondent, dated 15.03.2019. The appeal was allowed by order, dated 19.09.2019 directing the petitioner to pay costs of Rs.20,000/- for condoning the delay. The petitioner paid the cost within 15 days from the date of order (25.09.2019). The first respondent issued notice, dated 11.10.2019 directing the petitioner to appear before him on 19.10.2019. The petitioner submitted renewal application for futher periods from 20.03.2014 to 19.03.2019 and from 20.03.2019 to 19.03.2021 and remitted the necessary fee for renewal. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/10 W.P(MD).No.13252 of 2022
6. The first respondent again rejected the renewal application by order, dated 25.01.2020. In the meanwhile, there was lockdown due to Covid-19 pandemic. The petitioner for this reason could not file an appeal before the Tribunal immediately. The petitioner filed W.P.(MD).No.9903 of 2021 before this Court, challenging the order passed by the first respondent, dated 25.01.2020. This Court pleased to dismiss the above writ petition as withdrawn with liberty to file an appeal under Section 89 of the Motor Vehicle Act before the Appellate Tribunal by order, dated 09.06.2021. The petitioner submits that during the Covid-19 pandemic, few of the orders have been passed by the Apex Court giving exemption of the limitation in filing the relief petitions and appeals before all the forums including Hon’ble Supreme Court. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Tribunal on 11.08.2021. The appeal was taken on file by assigning R.No.782 of 2021. The appeal was rejected as not maintainable holding that the appeal was not filed within 30 days.
7. The contention of the petitioner is that the tribunal had not considered the chronology of the progress of the case right from the first rejection wherein, one of the proceedings, this Court already condone the delay. Thereafter, the first respondent passed the order with certain https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/10 W.P(MD).No.13252 of 2022 developments taken place. Finally, the appeal has been filed with a delay from 28.01.2020 to 14.03.2020 at the most with a delay of 70 days. The Tribunal can very well condone and ought to have disposed the appeal on merits. On the contrary, again dismissed the petition without considering the merits on the point of limitation, which is not proper. The petitioner relied on the decision of this Court in W.P(MD).Nos.7000 and 7001 of 2019, this Court passed the following order:
11.However, this Court feel that insofar as the right of appeal remedy available to the aggrieved party, as whose permit has been cancelled or whatever the grievance arising out of the orders to be passed by the Regional Transport Authority, the final fact finding statutory Appellate Authority is the State Tribunal, before whom, if an appeal is filed, that should be decided on merits, therefore, such kind of appeals cannot be rejected at the threshold, merely on the ground that the appeals had been filed with some delay on the ground that, such kind of delay cannot be condoned by the Tribunal.
12.Merely because the embargo put against the Tribunal to condone the delay in entertaining the appeal, which is filed belatedly, ofcourse with plausible reasons to accept the condone the delay, the valuable right of the parties to agitate the issue before the Appellate Tribunal itself is get vitiated, and that kind of destructive procedure, cannot be expected to be made in a Rule, which, in the considered view of this Court, would travel beyond the scope of the main Act, under which, such kind of appellate remedies are provided.
13.In this context, in the order referred to above, a learned Judge of this Court has entertained such a writ petition and given a direction to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, to receive and decide the appeal filed belatedly on merits, and according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, those orders were complied with and appeals were entertained, pursuant to the direction and orders passed by the writ Court.
14.Therefore, for all these reasons, this Court feels that the appeals filed, of course, with a delay of 152 days, can very well be https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/10 W.P(MD).No.13252 of 2022 entertained and the same can be decided on merits, and without deciding the main issue on merits, if it is rejected at the threshold on the condone delay stage, that would render the parties remediless and, that kind of situation cannot be permitted to prevail.
15.Therefore, for all these reasons, this Court is inclined to dispose of these writ petitions with the following order:
“that the impugned orders passed by the respondent is set aside, and the delay of 152 days, caused in filing the appeals by the petitioner is also condoned, and as a sequel, there shall be a direction to the Tribunal to entertain the appeals, and decide the same, on merits and in accordance with law. Hence, it is for the petitioner to file or resubmit the appeal papers within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to the Tribunal, and on receipt of the same, needful as indicated above, shall be undertaken by the Tribunal.”
8. The learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents submits that the petitioner for the past ten years filing one petition or other but not pursuing the case on merits. The limitation gets elapsed and filed one petition or other to get it condone.
Thereafter, again the petitioner committed the same mistake. This is the third round of litigation. He fairly submits that the order of the Appellate Tribunal has been passed not on merits only on the point of limitation.
9. Considering the same and perusal of the material, it is seen that the petitioner’s statutory right under Section 89 of MV Act ought to be addressed, which cannot be denied on the ground of limitation. Further, for the past two years, difficulty faced by everyone due to Covid-19 situation is very well known.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/10 W.P(MD).No.13252 of 2022
10. In view of the same, this Court hereby makes it clear whatever may be the delay, all are hereby condoned and now the delay pointed out by the Tribunal is also not proper. If at all any delay, the same is condoned. The order passed by the first respondent in R.No.782 of 2021 is hereby set aside. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal is directed to take R.No.782 of 2021 on file and pass appropriate orders on merits under Section 89 of MV Act. The petitioner is directed to make his submissions before the Tribunal, which to be considered and thereafter, the Tribunal will pass appropriate orders preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
11. The writ petitions stands disposed of with the above direction. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
27.06.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
sn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8/10
W.P(MD).No.13252 of 2022
To
1.The Regional Transport Authority,
O/o. The Regional Transport Authority,
Srirangam Region,
Tiruchirappalli.
2.The Regional Transport Officer,
Srirangam,
Tiruchirappalli District.
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9/10
W.P(MD).No.13252 of 2022
sn
W.P(MD).No.13252 of 2022
27.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10/10