Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 4332 (MAD)

S. Loganathan v. The State Transport & Others

2007-12-20

S.MANIKUMAR

body2007
Judgment :- The petitioner has filed this writ petition, seeking to issue a writ of certiorari, to quash the order passed by the 1st respondent made in R.P. No.34/2004/A6 dated 12. 2005 relating to the non-renewal of permit of Mini Bus TN-01/E-o257 plying on the route Stat Bank Colony to Kamakkapatti (via) Perumalpuram etc. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that in the year 1999, the petitioner made an application for grant of mini bus permit in respect of route State Bank Colony to Kamakkapatti and permit was granted to the petitioner by the second respondent on 24. 1999, valid upto 24. 2004. When the permit of the vehicle was due to expire, the made an application on 14. 2004 under Section 81 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for renewal. By an order dated 7. 2004, the second respondent rejected his application without any finding, on some pretexts and presumption that the overlapping portion exceeded the prescribed limit fixed without any basis. 3. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed statutory appeals before the first respondent under Section 89 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act the first respondent passed an order under Section 214 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the continued operation of the mini bus beyond 24. 2004, pending disposal of the said appeals. Thereafter, by an order dated 16.02.2005, the first respondent-Tribunal set aside the order of the second respondent and remitted the matter back to the second respondent with a direction to survey the route and if the served sector and unnerved areas are within the prescribed limit, the second respondent should proceed with the renewal of permit within six weeks from the date of receipt of records by the Original Authority. Till then, status quo was ordered to be maintained. 4. Though the time limit fixed for disposal of the appeal expired by 35. 2005, by way of abundant caution, the petitioner filed an application for grant of temporary permit under Section 87 (1) (d) of the Motor Vehicles Act to maintain continuity of the operation beyond the expiry of six weeks time fixed by the order of remand passed by the first respondent, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents. 6. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents. 6. When he matter came up for hearing, both the counsel appearing for the contesting parties brought to the notice of this Court a decision rendered by this Court in W.P.Nos.10079 of 2005 etc. batch dated 4. 2007 and submitted that the finding of the Tribunal in remitting the matter to the Regional Transport Authority has been confirmed and, therefore, a similar direction may be granted in this writ petition also. 7. A perusal of the order passed in W.P.Nos.10079 of 2005 batch dated 03.04.2007 shows that in a similar set of facts, the Tribunal had directed the Regional Transport Authority to survey the respective routes and if the routes are within the limits, he was directed to proceed with the renewal of permits. There was also a further direction to him that the process of renewal of permit should be completed within six weeks. 8. The direction of the Tribunal was challenged in the above batch of writ petitions and this Court, after considering the submissions of the contesting parties, passed the following order: “3. What are impugned in these writ petitions are the orders passed by the first respondent, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, remanding the matters back to the Regional Transport Authority to reconsider the issue by giving certain directions. I do not find that the direction given by the first respondent is beyond his jurisdiction. While remitting the matters, he has also given a direction of maintaining status-quotill orders are passed in the renewal applications and as such I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the orders of the first appellate authority, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, remanding the matters. 4. Hence the writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to proceed further as directed by the first respondent and pass appropriate orders as per the direction given by the first respondent. Till orders are passed, the parties are directed to maintain status-quo as on today. It is open to either of the parties to raise whatever ground available with them before the authority concerned. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.” 9. The facts and the points raised in the present writ petition are similar are therefore, I have no hesitation to apply the above said Division Bench order to the present writ petition. 10. It is open to either of the parties to raise whatever ground available with them before the authority concerned. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.” 9. The facts and the points raised in the present writ petition are similar are therefore, I have no hesitation to apply the above said Division Bench order to the present writ petition. 10. Accordingly, the order of the first respondent in remitting the matter to the second respondent, Regional Transport Authority, Theni to consider the issue, after conducting survey of the routes, cannot be termed as excess of jurisdiction. 11. This Court, in the above batch of writ petitions, considering the interest of the general public, continued the status quo granted by the Tribunal, till the disposal of the application for renewal of permit. Accordingly, in the present writ petition also, status quo ordered by the Tribunal shall continue till the disposal of the application for renewal of permit. It is open to the parties to raise whatever grounds available to them before the Regional Transport Authority, the second respondent, he is further directed to consider the same and pass orders within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Consequently, connected W.P.M.Ps. are closed.