Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(13)The 1st respondent stated that thereafter the Government invoking sub- section [2] of Sections 100 and 102 of the Act, notified the ''Approval of Modification of the District-wise Approved Area Schemes 1997'' vide G.O.Ms.Nos.128 to 1268, Home [Transport III] Department, dated 01.09.1997 and published it in the Government Gazette on 01.09.1997, notifying the complete exclusion of other persons, other than the State Transport Undertakings of other States, the existing permits of small operators protected under the Act 41/1992, the permits of stage carriage operators operating on inter-State routes and the permits of mini bus operators, operating on the routes lying in the unserved rural areas upto such distance as would be ordered by the Government from time to time. On 07.10.1997, the Government of Tamil Nadu, vide G.O.Ms.No.1475, Home [Transport-III] Department, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 03:19:41 pm ) WP.No.18184/2025 etc., batch permitted the private operators of the mini buses to serve the unserved rural areas with a condition that such permits were to be limited to a maximum limit of 16 Kms with an overlapping distance of 1 Km., in the Approved Scheme routes wherever necessary. The 1st respondent further stated that the Government, in exercise of powers under sub-section [1] of Section 102 of the MV Act, notified the 'Approved Modified [District-wise] Area schemes 1999' in G.O.Ms.Nos.1523 to 1549, Home [Transport-III] Department, dated 17.11.1999, notifying the exclusion of other persons other than the STUs of other States, the existing permits of small operators protected under the Act 41/1992, the permits of stage carriage operators covered by the inter-State Agreements and the permits of mini bus operators to operate in the rural areas of the District, where no stage carriage services were provided upto a route length not exceeding 20 Kms with an overlapping distance not exceeding 4 Kms, on the route where stage carriages are operating. Thereafter, exercising powers under Sections 100 and 102 of the Act, the Government formulated a new Comprehensive Scheme 2011, for the Modification of the Approved Modified Area Scheme, 1999 vide G.O.Ms.No.136, of the very same Department, dated 23.02.2011, notifying the complete exclusion of persons, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 03:19:41 pm ) WP.No.18184/2025 etc., batch other than the State Transport Undertakings of other States, the existing permits of small operators protected under Act 41/1992, the permits of the stage carriage operators covered by the inter-State Agreements and the permits of the mini bus operators to operate on the mini bus routes to be formulated by the Regional Transport Authorities under the powers conferred under clause [ca] of sub-section [3] of Section 68 of the said Act.

(19)The respondents 5 to 18, who were impleaded in WMP.No.22763/2025, filed a counter affidavit. The respondents 5 to 18, apart from refuting the submissions of the petitioners on the basis of the various provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, further submitted that when similar contentions that the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 03:19:41 pm ) WP.No.18184/2025 etc., batch impugned Scheme was against the letter and spirit of the Tamil Nadu Act 41/1992, were raised in earlier round of litigation, this Court had held that the bar imposed under Section 6[4] of the Act 41/1992, did not prevent the Government from modifying the Scheme. The respondents 5 to 18 submitted that the Act 41/1992, was introduced to validate the permits granted during the period between 04.06.1976 and 30.06.1990 and that, even under the present Scheme, the operators who were protected under the Act 41/1992, were saved under the exclusion clause. The respondents 5 to 18 further submitted that the Government had every right to save the mini bus operators like the respondents 5 to 18, since the Mini bus operators had spent huge amounts in purchasing the vehicles and if they were not saved, the operators would suffer heavy loss and hardship. The respondents 5 to 18 therefore prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions.

(72)It is further seen that the Scheme does not totally exclude the STUs, but it only includes the mini bus operators, and so, it cannot be said that the relaxation is meant to sabotage the Approved Scheme in favour of the private operators. The Scheme only provides for relaxation in favour of mini bus operators and that too, with a view to sub-serve public interest and hence, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Afsar Jahan Begum Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others] reported in 1996 [8] SCC 38, and AP State Road Transport Corporation Vs. petitioner.V.Ramamohan Chowdhary and Others reported in 1992 [2] SCC 235, the Government has the power to formulate the new Scheme under Section 100 of the Act.

Issue No.8:-Under the impugned scheme, whether the 1st respondent can validate the proceedings granted under the withdrawn scheme made in G.O.Ms.No.33, Home [Transport-I] Department, dated 23.01.2025, inasmuch as that Government Order was withdrawn, as the same is illegal, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India rendered in [2018] 4 SCC 515?

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 03:19:41 pm ) WP.No.18184/2025 etc., batch (81)Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that G.O.Ms.No.33, dated 23.01.2025, published on 24.01.2025, was withdrawn as the same was hit by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.A.Linga Reddy's case, and therefore, when the said Government Order was withdrawn, no proceedings taken under the withdrawn Notification could be validated. The learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2011 [3] SCC 436 and 1996 [7] SCC 343 in support of his contention. (82)The Government of Tamil Nadu took a policy decision as early as in the year 1999 to grant mini bus permits to private operators to serve the unserved rural area. The aforesaid decision of the Government had a checkered history and suffice it to say that the impugned Notification is the latest endeavour of the Government to permit mini bus operators to serve the unserved rural areas. The history of the litigation upto the impugned Notification has already been narrated in pre-paragraphs and therefore, to avoid prolixity, it is not traversed. The 1999 Scheme was upheld by this Court. Right from the year 1999, the mini bus operators have been operating by virtue of permits granted by the Government. The impugned Scheme is formulated for the entire State of Tamil https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 03:19:41 pm ) WP.No.18184/2025 etc., batch Nadu whereas the earlier Scheme formulated, was District-wise Area Scheme for each revenue District. Since some of the of the Districts were bifurcated and trifurcated over the period of 30 years, the Government thought it fit to formulate a Comprehensive Area Scheme for the entire State for the convenience of the STUs to operate their services, by including the already existing mini bus operators under the partial exclusion clause. The avowed object of the Scheme is to improve the accessibility of the bus services in urban and rural areas so as to ensure the last mile connectivity to the public. To protect the existing mini bus operators, the Government introduced the 'Deeming Clause' validating the proceedings of the Regional Transport Authorities under the earlier Notification [withdrawn]. The withdrawal of the earlier Notification, in my view, does not ipso facto obliterate or nullify actions already undertaken or the rights accrued unless a contrary intention is spelt out in the Scheme itself. The Government, in order to avoid disruption of services, multiplicity of litigations and hardship to the permit holders and passengers alike, introduced the deeming clause.