N. Muthu Gounder v. O. Jagadeesh and Others — 1994 DIGILAW 429 (MAD)

Judgment :- The above writ petition was originally filed against respondents 1 to 3 and the same was disposed of by me on 23-12-1993 on the basis of the joint memo signed by the counsel on either side viz., Mr. C. R. Krishnamurthi for the petitioner and Mr. V. A. Sadagopan for the 1st respondent, by passing the following Order : "The Petitioner in the above writ petition is one N. Muthu Gounder. The 1st respondent is one O. Jagadeesh. The above writ petition has been filed to quash the order in Appeal No. 85 of 1995 dated 28-10-1993 filed by the 1st respondent herein on the file of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras, the 3rd respondent herein. The dispute between the petitioner and the Respondents appears to be with regard to the timings of the petitioner's vehicle's departure. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the 1st respondent herein and to quash the said order, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition." 2. The writ petition was admitted by me on 10-11-1993 and on receipt of notice, the 1st respondent, who is the only contesting respondent in this case, appears through his counsel Mr. V. A. Sadagopan. Both parties have now filed a joint memo signed by the counsel on either side, namely Mr. C. Krishnamurthy for petitioner and Mr. V. A. Sadagopan for the 1st respondent. The Memo reads thus: "The petitioner and the 1st respondent agree that the departure timings of the petitioner's vehicle in question plying from Salem to Erode may be fixed at 12.20 at Salem towards Erode in the afternoon and to this extent the 2nd respondent may be directed to give effect to this joint memo." 3. The memo is recorded. The order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal is modified only in regard to the departure timings of the petitioner's vehicle. The 2nd respondent Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Gobichettipalayam, Periyar District is directed to give effect to this joint memo and will endorse the timings as agreed to by parties in the permit. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms." 2A. The 2nd respondent Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Gobichettipalayam, Periyar District is directed to give effect to this joint memo and will endorse the timings as agreed to by parties in the permit. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms." 2A. One P. Lakshmi, who has been impleaded as 4th respondent as per order of this Court dated 21-3-1994 in WMP No. 5325 of 1994, has filed W. M. P. No. 5326 of 1994 to set aside the order passed in W. P. No. 20120 of 1993 dated 23-12-1993 and to restore the writ petition to file. According to her, she was a party before the original authority/2nd respondent and at the instance of her objections, the identical departure time of 12.20 p.m. was avoided. She had no knowledge of the pendency of the appeal and no notice was issued to her from the office of the 3rd respondent. She came to know about the same only recently. She therefore prayed for setting aside the order of this Court dated 23-12-1993. 3. I heard the matter for some time and at the time of hearing, Mr. C. R. Krishnamurthi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V. A. Sadagopan, learned counsel for the 1st respondent represented that they have no objection to allow WMP No. 5326 of 1994 and to set aside the order passed by this Court in the main Writ Petition on 23-12-1993. Both parties were asked to file a joint memo duly signed by the parties. Accordingly, the writ petitioner and the 1st respondent filed a joint memo dated 24-3-1994 signed by the parties and their respective counsel, which reads as follows: "The petitioner in the writ petition namely, N. Muthu Gounder, S. M. B. S. Bus Service, A.2, Kollapatti, Animoor Post, Tiruchangode, and Thiru O. Jagadeesh, proprietor, National Roadlines, 270, Kaveri Street, Bhavani, the 1 st respondent in the writ petition, have no objection to allow WMP No. 5326 of 1994 in WP No. 20120 of 1993, and the order passed by this Hon'ble Court on 23-12-1993 in W. P. No. 20120 of 1993 being set aside. The parties also have agreed to argue the matter on merits." 4. In view of the joint memo and by consent of parties, the order passed by me in the main writ petition on 23-12-1993 was set aside and the writ petition was restored to file. The parties also have agreed to argue the matter on merits." 4. In view of the joint memo and by consent of parties, the order passed by me in the main writ petition on 23-12-1993 was set aside and the writ petition was restored to file. On restoration, I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the respective parties. 5. The writ petition has been filed to quash the order of the 3rd respondent/ Tribunal in Appeal No. 83 of 1993 dated 28-10-1993. The Tribunal by its common order in Appeal Nos. 83 and 109 of 1993 filed by the 1st respondent and petitioner respectively, allowed Appeal No. 83 of 1993 filed by the 1st respondent and set aside the order of the 2nd respondent made in R.No. 514/A3/93 dated 2-3-1993 fixing the departure time of the petitioner's bus TDX 7389 at 12.21 p.m. from Salem: The Tribunal has further ordered that the bus of the petitioner viz., TDX 7939 will revert to the old departure time of 12.18 p. m. from Salem and the 2nd respondent shall issue consequent proceedings. The Tribunal has dismissed the appeal viz., Appeal No. 109 of 1993 filed by the petitioner confirming the order of the 2nd respondent made in R. No.514/A3/92 dated 2-3-1993 retaining the departure time of the petitioner's bus TDX 7939 from Erode at 9.45 a.m. 6. According to Dr. V. Subramaniam, learned counsel for the petitioner, the Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction in assuming the role of revisionary jurisdiction and that there was no challenge on the ground of expediency as per R. 248(2) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules made by the 1st respondent in his appeal and as such, the finding in this behalf is vitiated since the Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction. He further contended that the Tribunal has failed to consider that the petitioner has got six minutes gap from his previous bus viz., Santhil Raja, which departs at 12.15 p.m. at Salem, whereas the lst respondent has got 9 minutes gap even after revising the timings as 12.21 p.m. departure or the petitioner's bus. In any event, it is contended that the Tribunal had not considered properly the gap timings available between various buses plying from Salem to Erode vie. Tiruchangode. In any event, it is contended that the Tribunal had not considered properly the gap timings available between various buses plying from Salem to Erode vie. Tiruchangode. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order of the Tribunal allowing Appeal No. 83 of 1993 is not legally sustainable and therefore it has to be quashed for the reasons stated supra. 7. Mr. V. A. Sadagopan, learned counsel for the lst respondent and Mr. A. L. Somayaji, learned counsel for the 4th respondent, while opposing the arguments of Dr. V. Subramaniam, supported the findings of the Tribunal. 8. I have carefully gone through the order passed by the Original Authority/ 2nd respondent and the Tribunal/ 3rd respondent and also considered the arguments advanced by the respective counsel. The only point that may arise for consideration in this writ petition is, whether the impugned, order of the Tribunal in Appeal No. 83 of, 1993, for the reasons stated therein, requires, to be reconsidered or interfered with by this court. 9. The 1st respondent's vehicle departs from Salem at 12.30 p.m. towards Erode viz. Tiruchangode. The petitioner was having the departure time at 12.18 p.m. at Salem towards Erode viz. Tiruchangoda for more than five years from the date of variation. The proposal of the petitioner that his vehicle shall depart at 12.20 p.m. at Salem was objected to by the 4th respondent on the ground that the departure time at 12.20 p.m. at Salem was identical one with her bus and that it would create an unhealthy competition. It is to be noticed that the course of route of the 4th respondent's vehicle is via Sankari. The vehicle of the petitioner is now introduced as 12.21 p.m. on the same course of route as that of the 1st respondent. Since the gap timing was 12 minutes for the 1st respondent, it was contended that the reduction in the gap of timings is unwarranted. It is submitted that the public are accustomed to the departure of the bus of the petitioner at 12.18 p.m. for several years and hence, revision of timings would cause disturbance to the travelling public. Since the gap timing was 12 minutes for the 1st respondent, it was contended that the reduction in the gap of timings is unwarranted. It is submitted that the public are accustomed to the departure of the bus of the petitioner at 12.18 p.m. for several years and hence, revision of timings would cause disturbance to the travelling public. Therefore it is contended that the Original Authority/2nd respondent should have fixed the departure timing at 12.18 p.m. which is the existing timing, or at 12.20 p.m. overlooking the objections of the 4th respondent and that it is not proper for the 2nd respondent to fix the departure timing at 12.21 p.m. 10. The petitioner also filed Appeal No. 109 of 1993 before the Tribunal against the order of the 2nd respondent contending that the order of the 2nd respondent is liable to be set aside on the ground that it has erred in saying that 9.51 a.m. departure at Erode will create unhealthy competition among the crew of the bus, which reasoning is not acceptable. 11. The Tribunal, on a careful consideration of the entire material placed before it and on a consideration of the arguments of the respective counsel, allowed Appeal No. 83 of 1993 filed by the 1st respondent herein and dismissed Appeal No. 109 of 1993 filed by the petitioner herein. The Tribunal has observed that the petitioner has not submitted any application seeking revision of timings with regard to the vehicle and relating to the departure time of 12.18 p.m. from Salem, and that the 2nd respondent has revised the timing, which was not the request made by the petitioner. There is also no application for revision of timings with regard to 12.18 p.m. departure but the application relates only to the departure time of the vehicle from Tiruchangode seeking a revision of the same to depart at 10.30 a.m. instead of 10.44 a.m. There was also no application by the petitioner for revision of departure time of 9.45 a.m. from Erode to fix it at 9.51 a.m. 12. The Tribunal, on a careful consideration of the entire material on record, pointed out that there is no public demand nor any representation for such a revision, and that the public have been accustomed to the service at 9.45 a.m. and that it is not disputed that the service at 9.45 a. m. has been there for the convenience of the people for a considerable time. Since there are no compelling circumstances or necessity, the tribunal found that the convenience to which the public is accustomed, should not be taken away. On a perusal of the records, the Tribunal was not able to find any material to suggest that there is any compelling reason or necessitating circumstances to warrant a revision. According to the opinion of the Tribunal, there was no public demand or request for such a revision. In confirming the order of the 2nd respondent and overruling the objections, the Tribunal has observed that it did not find any valid reason or ground to change the order of the 2nd respondent in favour of the petitioner (appellant in Appeal No. 109 of 1993) since, according to the Tribunal, the petitioner has no case to urge for revision of timings. Therefore, in so far as the petitioner is concerned, the Tribunal has not set aside the order of the 2nd respondent has confined the same. 13. While dealing with Appeal No. 83 of 1993 filed by the 1st respondent herein, the Tribunal has clearly opined that from the records of the timing conference held on 25-2-1993, as seen from page 107 of the note file, 12:20 p.m. departure time was objected to by the 4th respondent on the ground that it was identical departure time and therefore it will, affect her. Accepting this objection, the 2nd respondent revised the departure time from 1.20 to 12.21 in spite of the objection of the 1st respondent. The Tribunal, while considering whether this revision of timing from 12.18 to 12.21 was warranted and expedient, held that there is no application relating to the departure time of, the bus at 12.18 p.m. from Salem to Erode and where there is no application, then, only on the grounds of expediency the timings can be revised. Rule 248(1) empowers the Regional Transport Authority, either on his own motion or on an application, to fix timings if no schedule of timings already fixed or approved. Rule 248(1) empowers the Regional Transport Authority, either on his own motion or on an application, to fix timings if no schedule of timings already fixed or approved. That is not the case here. Section 248(1) of the Rules will not apply for the reason that this is a case where already timings have been fixed and approved. Moreover, Rule 248(1) empowers the Regional Transport Authority to fix timings only and if revision of timings is to be done, it can be done only under R. 248(2) and that under the present R. 248(2), which is in pari materia with the old R. 269(2), the Regional Transport Authority can either on his own motion or on an application, revise or modify any schedule of timings already fixed or approved if it is satisfied by expediency. Therefore, the tribunal has found that if there are gounds supporting expediency for revision, then alone it can be done by the Regional Transport Authority. 14. While considering the case of the 4th respondent herein, who objected to the revision of timings on the ground that she has identical time and that fixing of the departure time at 12.20 p.m. from Salem would affect her interest, which was taken into consideration by the 2nd respondent who fixed the timing at 12.21 p.m. the Tribunal held that the 2nd respondent cannot abandon the agreed timing without giving an opportunity to the affected operator. It is useful to extract the concluding remarks to the Tribunal in this context, which run as follows : "The grounds of expediency are also not there. In such circumstances, this revision appears unwarranted. As already stated by me, the Regional Transport Authority is given power to revise the timings only if expediency requires it. As to expediency, we have nothing to say in this matter. Thus, this revision is not based on any expediency. Nor it is supported by any necessity. It is not warranted by any public demand. Nor there is anything to show that this revision is based upon public interest." 15. Thus, considering the entire materials as a whole, the Tribunal was constrained to hold that the revision of timings is not warranted and not supported in law or on merits. Nor it is supported by any necessity. It is not warranted by any public demand. Nor there is anything to show that this revision is based upon public interest." 15. Thus, considering the entire materials as a whole, the Tribunal was constrained to hold that the revision of timings is not warranted and not supported in law or on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal has set aside the order of the 2nd respondent revising the departure time of the writ petitioner's bus TDX 7939 plying on the route Sathy to Salem from 12.18 to 12.21 p.m. The Tribunal answered the points holding that the order of the 2nd respondent refusing the revision of the departure time of the bus TDX 7939 at Erode belonging to the petitioner/ appellant in Appeal No. 109 of 1993 from 9.45 to 9.51 a.m. is not liable to be set aside and that the order of the 2nd respondent revising the departure time of the bus TDX 7939 belonging to the writ petitioner from 12.18 p.m. to 12.21 p.m. from Salem is liable to be set aside. 16. In my opinion, the order of the Tribunal is perfectly correct and it does not call for any interference at the instance of the writ petitioner. The reasons given by the Tribunal for passing the order impugned in this writ petition are cogent and convincing and that the Tribunal has not exceeded its jurisdiction as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. There are absolutely no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 17. For the foregoing reasons, the order of the Tribunal/3rd respondent in allowing Appeal No. 83 of 1993 filed by the 1st respondent is confirmed, with the result, the bus of the writ petitioner will revert to the old departure time of 12.18 p.m. from Salem and the 2nd respondent is directed to issue consequent proceedings accordingly. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.