V.Palanivel vs The Regional Transport Authority on 12 August, 2016
5.The petitioner secured certain information under the Right to Information Act as to whether the underground drainage work is going on in Rasipuram Municipality limits and by relying upon the reply received it is stated that the drainage work is going on and the petitioner cannot ply the vehicle. Further, the petitioner would admit that his vehicle was impounded on three occasions when he plied in the different route and the petitioner has challenged those proceedings and the matters are pending before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. With these facts, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's application is to be considered in accordance with Section 66(3)(m) of the Motor Vehicles Act and he should be permitted to ply in the diverted route till the roads are fully repaired. The learned counsel has referred to certain orders passed in W.P.No.39373 of 2005 (G.Elangovan vs. The Regional Transport Authority, Cuddalore and another) dated 17.10.2006, W.A.No.159 of 2007 (Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd., rep. by its Managing Director, Villupuram vs. G.Elangovan and others) dated 06.02.2007 and W.P.Nos.2886 & 2887 of 2008 (M.Asraf Ali vs. The Regional Transport Authority, Cuddalore) dated 04.02.2008 and submitted that in all those cases positive direction was issued to grant permission to ply in the diverted route when the road condition was bad.