Madras High Court
R.Rajakeerthana vs The Regional Transport Authority on 16 June, 2021
W.A.(MD)No.1234 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 16.06.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD)No.1234 of 2021
and
W.M.P(MD) No.5186 of 2021
R.Rajakeerthana ... Appellant / Writ Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Regional Transport Authority,
Dindigul District,
Dindigul.
2.The Secretary
Regional Transport Authority,
Regional Transport Office,
Dindigul,
Dindigul District.
3.V.R.Rajangam
4.Vani
5.C.Ravi
6.S.Seeman ... Respondents / Respondents
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1234 of 2021
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, praying to
set aside the order dated 14.09.2020 in W.P.(MD)No.16857 of 2018 on the file
of this Court.
For Appellant : Mr.A.C.Asaithambi
For Respondents 1 to 5 : No Appearance
For 6th Respondent : Mrs.J.Saranya,
For Mr.N.Sathish Babu
----
JUDGMENT
************
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.]
We have heard Mr.C.Asaithambi, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and Mrs.Saranya, learned counsel representing Mr.N.Sathish Babu,
learned counsel appearing for the sixth respondent.
2.This writ appeal is directed against the order, dated 14.09.2020
passed in W.P.(MD)No.16857 of 2018
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1234 of 2021
3.The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Bench on
the sole ground that the impugned proceedings is only a show-cause notice,
by referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India
Vs. Punichetty Satya Narayana reported in (2006) 12 SCC - 28. The court
held that no writ lies against a show-cause notice.
4.We have perused the impugned order in the writ petition, dated
17.07.2018, which is the proceedings of the second respondent namely, the
Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, who is none other than the Regional
Transport Officer of Dindigul.
5.The petitioner has challenged the impugned proceedings on the
ground that the second respondent, has no jurisdiction to issue the said notice
and it is a notice calling upon the appellant to explain as to why the transfer of
gauge carriage permit effected on 26.12.2019 should not be cancelled under
the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and Rules framed thereunder. The
second respondent, namely, the Regional Transport Officer, has no
jurisdiction to review his own order and to cancel the transfer effected and
approved in the year 2012.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1234 of 2021
6.Therefore, we are of the view that the learned Writ Court ought to
have entertained the writ petition and decided whether the second respondent
was justified in issuing the impugned notice, dated 17.07.2018 proposing to
question the transfer of the stage carriage permit effected on 26.09.2012.
7.Therefore, we do not agree with the conclusion arrived at by the
learned Single Bench. The normal course would be to set aside and remand
the matter to the learned Single Bench for fresh consideration. However,
taking note of the fact that the writ petition is of the year 2018 and the third
respondent had approached an incompetent authority by way of
representation, which has resulted in the notice, we hold that the second
respondent lacks jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice, dated 17.07.2018.
However, it is always open to the third respondent herein, to question the
correctness of the transfer effected in favour of the appellant in the manner
known to law, if so advised. We are also informed that already a suit for
partition in O.S.No.448 of 1977 culminated into a decree on 14.02.1980.
8.In the light of the above, we hold that the second respondent has
no jurisdiction to issue the notice, dated 17.07.2018.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1234 of 2021
9.Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed. Consequently, the order
passed in the writ petition is set aside and the proceedings, dated 17.07.2018
of the second respondent, is quashed. However, it is open to the
respondents 4 to 6, to proceed and avail other remedies available under the
law. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[T.S.S., J.] & [S.A.I., J.]
16.06.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
RM
Note : In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may
be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that
the copy of the order that is presented is the correct
copy, shall be the responsibility of the
advocate/litigant concerned.
To
1.The Regional Transport Authority,
Dindigul District,
Dindigul.
2.The Secretary
Regional Transport Authority,
Regional Transport Office,
Dindigul,
Dindigul District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1234 of 2021
T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.
AND
S.ANANTHI, J.
RM
JUDGMENT MADE IN
W.A.(MD)No.1234 of 2021
16.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
