Madras High Court
P.Palanichamy vs The District Collector-Cum on 26 October, 2021
W.P.(MD)No.19150 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 26.10.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
W.P.(MD)No.19150 of 2021
P.Palanichamy ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector-cum-
The Regional Transport Authority,
Theni.
2.The Regional Transport Officer,
Theni.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Keelavalavu Police station,
Madurai. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the
impugned order of the 2nd respondent vide Na.Ka.No.24019/A3/2021
dated Nil.10.2021 signed on 13.10.2021, and to quash the same and
further to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to grant replacement of the
existing stage carriage vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 59 AQ 6843
with vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 66 S 4533 with regard to the
stage carriage permit of the petitioner on the route Madurai to Cumbum.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/18
W.P.(MD)No.19150 of 2021
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Anandkumar
For Respondents : Mr.D.Ghandiraj
Government Advocate
ORDER
The prayer sought for herein is the Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus, calling for the records of the impugned order of the 2 nd
respondent vide Na.Ka.No.24019/A3/2021 dated Nil.10.2021 signed on
13.10.2021, and to quash the same and further to direct the respondents 1
and 2 to grant replacement of the existing stage carriage vehicle bearing
Registration No.TN 59 AQ 6843 with vehicle bearing Registration
No.TN 66 S 4533 with regard to the stage carriage permit of the
petitioner on the route Madurai to Cumbum.
2.It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is having a valid
stage carriage permit for running the bus in the route between Madurai
and Cumbum in respect of vehicle with Registration No.TN 59 AQ 6843.
The said permit was given by the first respondent, which has been
renewed by the first respondent for a period of five years from
01.03.2020 to 28.02.2025.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.19150 of 2021
3.In the year 2012, a case has been registered in Crime No.155 of
2012 by the third respondent, where the vehicle in question allegedly
involved in a criminal case. Therefore, the police impounded the vehicle
and the certificate of registration for the said bus with Registration
No.TN 59 AQ 6843 has been produced before the concerned Magistrate
Court, at Melur.
4.In view of the said case, since the vehicle in question has been
impounded by the respondent police, the petitioner even though is
having a valid permit to run the vehicle in the said route upto
28.02.2025, he could not ply the vehicle. Therefore, in order to replace
the vehicle in question for the same permit, the petitioner has made a
request to the respondents ie., the respondents 1 and 2 and the said
request has been turned out through the impugned order passed by the
second respondent dated 15.10.2021, wherein the second respondent has
stated the following reasons:
',t;tpz;zg;gj;jpid 1988 Nkhl;lhu; thfdg;
gpupT 83d; fPo; guprPyid nra;jpl fPo;f;fz;l
tpguq;fSld; kPs ,t;tYtyfj;jpw;F tpz;zg;gk;
nra;AkhW thfd cupikahsu; Nfl;Lf;
nfhs;sg;gLfpwhu;.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.19150 of 2021
1.TN 59 AQ 6843 thfd mry; gjpTr; rhd;W
fPotsT fhty; epiya Fw;w tof;F vz;.155/2012
d;gb NkYhu; ePjpkd;w eLtu; ePjpkd;wj;jpd;
nghWg;gpy; xg;gilf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ.
Nkw;fz;lgb ,t;thfdj;jpd; kPJ tof;F
epYitap;y; cs;sjhy; mDkjp rPl;L
elg;gpYs;s ,t;thfdj;ij NtnwhU NgUe;J
nfhz;l thfd khw;wk; mDkjpf;fyhk;
vd;gjw;fhd ePjpkd;w cj;juit NkYhu;
khz;gikT ePjpkd;w eLtu; ePjpkd;wj;jpy; ngw;W
tpz;zg;gj;Jld; ,izf;fg;gltpy;iy.
2.TN 59 AQ 6843 thfdj;jpd; mry; gjpTr;
rhd;W kw;Wk; mDkjp rPl;L thfdk; khw;wk;
Nfhupa tpz;zg;gj;Jld; ,izf;fg;gltpy;iy.”
Challenging the said order, the present Writ Petition has been filed.
5.Mr.J.Anandkumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
has submitted that the bus with Registration No.TN 59 AQ 6843, which
was used by the petitioner with the permit since has been impounded, the
said vehicle could not be pressed into service. Therefore, in order to
replace the vehicle with the different vehicle number, when the petitioner
approached the respondents, especially the second respondent, under
Section 83 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, instead of permitting the
petitioner to replace the vehicle, the present order has been passed
directing the petitioner to get an order from the concerned Magistrate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.19150 of 2021
Court, where criminal case is pending and also to produce the original
Registration Certificate pertaining to the vehicle in question, even
though the same has been produced and kept in the records of the
criminal case concerned at the Court referred above. Therefore, the
learned counsel seeks indulgence of this Court to set aside the said order
and remit the matter back to the respondents for re-consideration, as the
said reasoning given by the second respondent in the impugned order is
not inconsonance with Section 83 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
6.In this context, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
has relied upon various orders passed by this Court in
W.P.(MD)No.12245 of 2020 dated 30.09.2020 and W.A.(MD)No.395 of
2021 dated 15.03.2021, following which, a number of orders have been
passed by this Court at various point of time on the similar issue.
7.Per contra, Mr.D.Ghandiraj, learned Government Advocate
appearing for the respondents, on instructions, would submit that, the
vehicle in question of the petitioner involved in a crime. Therefore, it
was impounded and the criminal case is still pending. Therefore, during
pendency of the criminal case, if the vehicle in question is permitted to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.19150 of 2021
be replaced by any other vehicle, by taking advantage of the situation,
the vehicle in question, which has already been impounded, is also to be
pressed into service. Therefore, in order to avoid the same, such kind of
orders were sought to be obtained from the concerned Magistrate Court.
Accordingly, the application of the petitioner was considered and the
orders to be passed by the Magistrate Court can be obtained and the
original registration certificate from the Magistrate can also be obtained
and produced for the purpose of considering the application to grant
permission to replace the vehicle in question. Therefore, the said order
does not warrant any interference, he contended.
8.I have considered the said rival submissions made by both the
parties and have perused the materials placed before this Court.
9.As has been rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner, the issue raised in this writ petition is no more
res-integra. A number of orders have been passed by this Court and the
Writ Court Order has been confirmed by the Division Bench Judgment
referred to above. Following these orders, I had an occasion to consider
the similar issue recently in W.P.(MD)Nos.17947 & 17948 of 2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.19150 of 2021
dated 01.10.2021, in the matter of Masana Thevar vs. The District
Collector, Madurai and 2 others.
10.After having considered all these aspects, I have passed the
following order:
“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:-
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.19150 of 2021
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.19150 of 2021
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.19150 of 2021
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.19150 of 2021
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, 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.19150 of 2021
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.
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:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.19150 of 2021
“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.”
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.19150 of 2021
respondent for re-consideration. While
reconsidering the same, the aforestated
view of this Court and the 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.
21.With these directions the writ petition is
disposed of. No costs.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.19150 of 2021
11.The facts of the said case is similar to the facts of the present
case also. Therefore, the law already decided would squarely apply to
the present case also, where the petitioner is entitled to get a direction.
12.In that view of the matter, this Court feels that this Writ
Petition can be disposed of with the following orders:
that the impugned order is quashed and the matter
is remitted back to the second respondent for re-
consideration. While reconsidering the same, the
aforestated view of this Court and the 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
petitiones that the petitioner shall not under any
circumstance utilize the vehicles in question ie.,
TN59 AQ 6843 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.19150 of 2021
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.
13.Accordingly, this Writ Petition is ordered. However, there shall
be no order as to costs.
26.10.2021
sm/gbg
Index : Yes/No
Note : Issue order copy on 29.10.2021.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.19150 of 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,
Theni.
2.The Regional Transport Officer,
Theni.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Keelavalavu Police station,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.19150 of 2021
R.SURESH KUMAR ,J.
sm/gbg
Order made in
W.P.(MD)No.19150 of 2021
Dated:
26.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
