Madras High Court
Masana Thevar vs The District Collector – Cum on 1 October, 2021
W.P(MD)Nos.17947 & 17948 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 01.10.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
W.P.(MD)Nos.17947 & 17948 of 2021
Masana Thevar ...Petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.17947 of 2021
M.Saraswathi Ammal ...Petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.17948 of 2021
-Vs-
1.The District Collector – cum-
The Regional Transport Authority,
Madurai.
2. The Regional Trasnport Officer,
Madurai (North),
Madurai.
3. The Inspector of Police,
Keelavalavu Police Station,
Madurai. ...Respondents in both WPs
Common Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of Constitution
of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
records of the impugned orders of the 2nd respondent vide Na.Ka.No.
44153/A2/2021 and Na.Ka.No.40522/A2/2021 dated Nil.09.2021 and
15.09.2021 signed on 17.09.2021 and 27.09.2021 and to quash the same
and further to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to grant replacement of the
existing stage carriage vehicles bearing Registration Nos.TN59 AL 4713
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)Nos.17947 & 17948 of 2021
and TN 59 AQ 3927 with the vehicles bearing Registration Nos.TN 59
AT 2035 and TN 55 AC 5742 with regard to the stage carriage permits of
the petitioners on the route Madurai to Ponnamatavathy and Melur to
Kottampatti, respectively.
For Petitioners : Mr.J.Anandkumar (in both WPs)
For Respondents : Mr.D.Ghandiraj (in both WPs)
Government Advocate
COMMON ORDER
The prayer sought for herein is for a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus, calling for the records of the impugned orders of the 2nd
respondent vide Na.Ka.No.44153/A2/2021 and Na.Ka.No.
40522/A2/2021 dated Nil.09.2021 and 15.09.2021 signed on 17.09.2021
and 27.09.2021 and to quash the same and further to direct the
respondents 1 and 2 to grant replacement of the existing stage carriage
vehicles bearing Registration Nos.TN59 AL 4713 and TN 59 AQ 3927
with the vehicles bearing Registration Nos.TN 59 AT 2035 and TN 55
AC 5742 with regard to the stage carriage permits of the petitioners on
the route Madurai to Ponnamatavathy and Melur to Kottampatti,
respectively.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)Nos.17947 & 17948 of 2021
2.It is the case of the petitioners that, both the petitioners are
having Stage Carriage Permits for the route between Madurai to
Ponnamatavathy and Melur to Kottampatti for the vehicles bearing
Registration Nos.TN 59 AL 4713 and TN 59 AQ 3927 respectively.
3.While so, the said vehicles since were involved in some criminal
case, there have been cases pending before the concerned Magistrate.
The resultant position would be that, the vehicles have been seized and
produced before the Magistrate Court, where, the documents pertain to
the vehicles concerned have also been produced. Therefore, the vehicles
cannot be used anymore for the present under the permits given to the
petitioners.
4.Hence, in order to replace the vehicles with the same permits, the
petitioners since are having other vehicles with registration Nos.TN 59
AT 2035 and TN 55 AC 5742, they had made applications under Section
83 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 201 of the Tamil
Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)Nos.17947 & 17948 of 2021
5.However, having considered the said applications submitted by
the petitioners, the respondents, ie., the second respondent has rejected
the same, by orders dated 17.09.2021 and 15.09.2021. Aggrieved over
the same, the present writ petitions have been filed.
6.Heard Mr.J.Anandkumar, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners, who would submit that, insofar as the two reasons stated in
the rejection orders are concerned, the first reason cannot be imposed
against the petitioners and even in respect of the second reason, if the
original RC books ie., Registration Certificates are produced before the
Magistrate and if the petitioners are not able to get back the same, only a
certified copy would be possible to be obtained and produced before the
respondents.
7.Insofar as the apprehension made by the respondents is
concerned, the petitioners' counsel would submit that, the vehicles in
question ie., TN59 AL 4713 and TN 59 AQ 3927 would be kept only as
idle vehicles, for which, tax also would be paid and it would be never
used for plying in the route under the permits. Therefore, the said
reasons stated by the respondents in the impugned orders cannot be
sustained, he contended.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)Nos.17947 & 17948 of 2021
8.Per Contra, Mr.D.Ghandiraj, learned Government Advocate
appearing for the respondents would submit that, though under Section
83 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it is possible for the petitioners to
get replacement of the vehicles in the given permits, but in normal
circumstances, as per the Rules 201 and 202 of the Tamil Nadu Motor
Vehicles Rules, 1989, if the vehicles are produced by the permit holders
for the purpose of replacing the existing vehicles, they are otherwise in
order, that kind of permission for replacing the vehicles would be given.
9.However, in cases, where the vehicle involved in any criminal
case and with the result, the issue is pending before the concerned
Criminal Court, where some orders are passed or otherwise, only
depending upon the orders to be passed by the criminal Court alone, the
fate of the earlier vehicle or existing vehicle can be decided, as there can
be chance for the permit holders to reintroduce the same vehicles, after
getting it released from the criminal Court, by way of an interim custody.
In that case, that will be the violation of the permit conditions.
Therefore, the first reason has been stated in the impugned orders.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)Nos.17947 & 17948 of 2021
10.In respect of the second reason stated in the impugned orders is
concerned, the learned Government Advocate would submit that, unless
the original Registration Certificate is produced, which is required under
the relevant Rules, the requests of the petitioners cannot be considered.
Therefore, the second reason has been given.
11.Citing these two reasons stated in the impugned orders, the
learned Government Advocate would submit that, there is every
justification on the part of the second respondent to make all these two
reasons in the impugned orders, hence, the impugned orders cannot be
said to be unsustainable and therefore, he seeks dismissal of the writ
petitions.
12.I have considered the said rival submissions made by the
learned counsel appearing for both parties and have perused the materials
placed before this Court.
13.In a similar circumstance, infact the permit holder had
approached before this Court in W.P.(MD)No.12245 of 2020, where the
learned Single Judge of this Court, by order dated 30.09.2020 has passed
the following order:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)Nos.17947 & 17948 of 2021
4.The stand of the respondents is that if the
petitioner is allowed to replace the vehicle, the
character of the vehicle will change from being a
public service vehicle to an idle vehicle. I am not
impressed by the aforesaid objection. The learned
counsel for the petitioner drew to my attention to
the relevant provisions set out in Tamil Nadu
Motor Vehicles Rules. They are as follows:-
“201. Permit — replacement of vehicle
application.
(1) If the holder of a permit desires at any
time to replace a vehicle covered by the
permit with another vehicle he shall
forward the permit and apply in writing to
the Transport Authority by which the
permit was issued stating the reasons why
the replacement is desired and shall—
(i) if the new vehicle is in his possession
forward the certificate of registration
thereof; or (ii) if the new vehicle is riot in
his possession, state any material
particulars in respect of which the new
vehicle will differ from the old.
(2) The fee payable in respect of an
application for replacement of a vehicle
by another vehicle, other than involving
variation of permit and in respect of
vehicles involving variation of permit shall
be such fee as prescribed in rule 279
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)Nos.17947 & 17948 of 2021
202. Rejection of application.— Upon
receipt of an application under rule 201
the Transport Authority may in its
discretion reject the application—
(i) if it has previous to the date of the
receipt,of the application, given
reasonable notice of its intention to reduce
the number of transport vehicles of that
class generally or in respect of the route
or area to which the permit applies; or
(ii) if the new vehicle proposed differs in
material respects from the old; or
(iii) if the holder of the permit has
contravened the provision thereof or has
been deprived of possession of the old
vehicle under the provisions of any
agreement of hire
purchase.
203. Procedure on granting replacement.
— If the Transport Authority grants an
application for the replacement of a
vehicle under rule 201 it shall call upon
the holder of the permit to produce the
permit relating to the old vehicle and the
certificate of registration of the vehicle if
not previously delivered to it and shall
correct the permit accordingly under its
seal and signature and return them to the
holder.”
5.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)Nos.17947 & 17948 of 2021
that the petitioner has complied with all the
requirements set out in Rule 201. There can be no
dispute whatsoever that the petitioner is in
possession of a new vehicle and he is also having
the certificate of registration. In such a case, the
application could have been rejected only on one
of the three grounds set out in Rule 202. I sustain
the contention of the petitioner's counsel that the
reason for rejection will not fall under any of the
three circumstances set out in Rule 202. The
petitioner's counsel would point out that the
discretion of the authority is circumscribed by
Rule 202. The respondents cannot not invent a
fourth ground for rejection of the application for
replacement of the vehicle.
6.In the case on hand, it is true that the
petitioner's vehicle was seized by the police and
that it was returned pursuant to the orders of the
jurisdictional Magistrate. The petitioner's counsel
states that even after replacing the vehicle, he will
continue to pay idle tax for vehicle and that he
will comply with the conditions stipulated by the
jurisdictional Magistrate.
7.The second respondent in his counter has
claimed that if the vehicle is replaced, the
character of the vehicle will get changed. When
the jurisdictional Magistrate imposed a condition
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)Nos.17947 & 17948 of 2021
that the character of the vehicle should not be
changed, he only meant that the vehicle as a
physical object should be maintained as such. The
learned Magistrate could not have meant
anything else.
8.That apart the vehicle in question has become
fairly old. If it is replaced by new vehicle, it will
only benefit the passengers. The first respondent
has not taken note of this relevant and vital
aspect. Looked at from any angle, the order
impugned in the writ petition is not sustainable. It
is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The
respondents 1 and 2 are directed to permit the
petitioner to replace the petition mentioned
vehicle by the new vehicle bearing Registration
No.TN-51-K-0715. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.”
14.Infact, the said order though was appealed by way of an intra-
Court Appeal in W.A.(MD)No.395 of 2021 by the Transport Authorities,
the order of the writ Court was confirmed by the order of Division Bench
dated 15.03.2021 with the following terms:-
“2.The learned Special Government Pleader
appearing for the appellants submitted that if any
such permission is given, it will be contrary to the
order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)Nos.17947 & 17948 of 2021
not to alter, mortgage, sell or in any other manner
transfer or encumber the vehicle till the disposal of
the criminal case, and in any case, if the permit is
likely to be transferred to the new vehicle, the
respondent cannot be permitted to use the old
vehicle.
3.We do not find any merit in this appeal,
particularly, in view of the submission made by the
learned counsel appearing for the respondent that
the very same permit will not be used for the old
vehicle and the said vehicle will be kept in idle and
the respondent will also not alienate the same.
4.In view of the said submission, the order of the
learned Single Judge does not require any
interference. In fact, the order will enure the
benefit of not only the respondent, but also the
general public. In any case, if the permit is likely to
be transferred to the new vehicle, the old vehicle
cannot be used as stated by the learned Special
Government Pleader.
5.This Writ Appeal is disposed of accordingly. No
costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous
Petition is closed.”
The petitioners have been similarly placed and infact he is better placed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)Nos.17947 & 17948 of 2021
15.Insofar as the existing vehicles, which involved in the criminal
cases are concerned, it is the definite stand of the petitioners that the
vehicles could not be reintroduced, unless and until clean sheet is
obtained from the criminal Court. Moreover, the existing vehicles
should be kept as idle vehicles and idle tax would be paid without any
default.
16.Insofar as the replacement of the vehicles is concerned, ie.,
TN 59 AT 2035 and TN 55 AC 5742, whatever the documents required
ie., registration certificate and other documents for the purpose of
replacing the vehicles under the existing permits had also been produced
and therefore, based on which, the issue can be reconsidered and
accordingly, an order can be passed under Section 83 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988.
17.The reason being that, Section 83 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 reads thus:
“83. Replacement of vehicles. - The holder
of a permit may, with the permission of the
authority by which the permit was granted, replace
any vehicle covered by the permit by any other
vehicle of the same nature.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)Nos.17947 & 17948 of 2021
18.No other reasons can be stated for replacing the vehicles as has
been contemplated under Section 83 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
However insofar as the Rules 201 and 202 of the Tamil Nadu Motor
Vehicles Rules, 1989 are concerned, what are all the 3 reasons in which,
such rejection has to be made, have been clearly stated and infact, it was
dealt with by the Writ Court in the aforesaid judgment, which has been
confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court also.
19.Therefore, beyond the said reasons, no new reasons can be
invented or added by the Transport Authorities to be complied or
requiring to be complied with by the permit holders, as has been stated in
the impugned orders. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that
the impugned orders cannot be sustained and are liable to be interfered
with.
20.In the result, following orders are passed in the writ petitions:
that the impugned orders are quashed and the
matters are remitted back to the second respondent
for re-consideration. While reconsidering the
same, the aforestated view of this Court and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)Nos.17947 & 17948 of 2021
view already confirmed by the Division Bench
order referred to above, shall be borne in mind
and in this regard, undertakings can be obtained
from the petitioners that the petitioners shall not
under any circumstance utilize the vehicles in
question ie., TN59 AL 4713 and TN 59 AQ 3927
by using the permits, unless and until it is
completely cleared from the criminal cases by the
concerned criminal Court. After getting such
undertakings from the petitioners and after
verifying the other documents pertaining to the
replacement of vehicles, as per Section 83 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rules 201 and 202
of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, revised orders
can be passed by the respondents with regard to
the plea of the petitioners for replacement of the
vehicles concerned. The needful as indicated
shall be undertaken by the second respondent
within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)Nos.17947 & 17948 of 2021
21.With these directions the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
01.10.2021
Index : Yes/No
SM
Note: Issue Order Copy on 06.10.2021.
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 District Collector – cum-
The Regional Transport Authority,
Madurai.
2. The Regional Trasnport Officer,
Madurai (North)
Madurai.
3. The Inspector of Police,
Keelavalavu Police Station,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)Nos.17947 & 17948 of 2021
R.SURESH KUMAR, J.
SM
Order made in
W.P.(MD)Nos.17947 & 17948 of 2021
Dated:
01.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
