Madras High Court
S.Mahendran vs The State Transport Appellate ... on 1 August, 2022
W.P.No.30386 of 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.08.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.No.30386 of 2008
and MP.No.1 and 2 of 2008
S.Mahendran
... Petitioner
.Vs.
1.The State Transport Appellate Tribunal
High Court Buildings
Chennai.
2.The Regional Transport Authority
Tiruppur Region
Coimbatore District.
3.The Managing Director
Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation
(Coimbatore) Limited. ..Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a
Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the 1st respondent in Appeal No.524/2005 dt
13.11.2008 relating to the non-renewal of the permit of mini bus No.TN-39/C-0729 of the
petitioner plying on the route “Palladam Anna Salai to Valayampalayam Pirivu” and to
quash the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
W.P.No.30386 of 2008
For Petitioner : Mrs.Radha Gopalan
For Respondents : Mr.T.K.Saravanan
Government Advocate
ORDER
This writ petition was filed challenging the order of the State Transport Appellate
Tribunal, dated 13.11.2008.
2.The case of the petitioner is that he made an application for grant of mini bus
permit on certain routes. The 2nd respondent after scrutinizing the application and after
getting the necessary reports, granted the permit in favour of the petitioner for a period of
five years from 21.08.20022 to 20.08.2005. The petitioner also started plying the vehicle
in this routes.
3.The further case of the petitioner is that he made an application for renewal of the
permit before the 2nd respondent for a further period of five years. The 2nd respondent
through proceedings dated 16.08.2005, rejected the application filed by the petitioner on
the ground that the distance of the served sector inclusive of the portion not covered by
the regular stage carriage exceeds 4 kmts within the municipal limit.
4.Aggrieved by the above order of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner filed an appeal
before the Tribunal. The Tribunal on considering the grounds raised by the petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.30386 of 2008
allowed the appeal by setting aside the order of the 2 nd respondent and the matter was
remanded back to the file of the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration with a direction to
give an opportunity to the petitioner and pass necessary orders, within a period of one
month. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 1 st respondent ought to have granted
renewal of the permit and instead remitted the matter back to the file of the 2 nd
respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition was filed before this Court.
5.Heard Mrs.Radhagopalan, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr.T.K.Saravanan, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
6.When this writ petition was entertained, this Court had granted interim order in
favour of the petitioner and by virtue of the same, the petitioner continues to operate the
mini bus in the concerned route till date.
7.The learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court the order
passed in a batch of writ petitions with respect to the very same issue. For proper
appreciation, the relevant portions of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.9646 of
2005 etc., dated 04.08.2011, are extracted hereunder:
4. During the pendency or the appeals, the first respondent passed
an order under Section 214 (2) of the Motor Vehicle Act for continuing the
operations of the Minibus. Finally, the first respondent passed the impugned
order allowing the appeal by setting aside the order of the 2 respondent.
However, he remitted the matter back to the 2nd respondent with a direction
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.30386 of 2008
to survey the route and if the served sector and unserved areas are within
the limits, the second respondent was further directed to proceed to renew
the permit and the said direction was to be complied within six weeks from
the date of receipt of records by the second respondent. Therefore, the
grievance of the petitioners is that the first respondent having allowed the
appeal ought to have granted the renewal as well. According to the
petitioners, though the time frame fixed by, the first respondent has expired
long back, the second respondent has not renewed the permit and hence
these Writ Petitions.
5. At this juncture, when the gutters were taken up for hearing, the
learned counsel appearing on both sides brought to the notice of this court,
a similar order passed by this Court, dated 03.04.2007, in W.P.Nos.10079 to
10083 of 2705, by which this Court, by disposing of similar Writ Petitions
mentioned above, gave a direction to proceed further as directed by the first
respondent and pass appropriate orders, as per the direction given by the
first respondent - The State Transport Appellate Tribunal - Chennai. Till
orders are passed, the parties were directed to maintain status-quo as on
03.04.2007 by indicating that the petitioners are also bound by the said
order. The counsel for the petitioners and the respondents prayed for
passing the same orders by giving disposal to these batch of matters.
6. When a query was put forth to the learned counsel for the
respondents as to whether the direction issued by this Court on 3.04.2007 in
Writ Petition Nos.10079 to 10083 of 2005 has been Complied with by the
second respondent by taking appropriate survey in the respective route, in
which the petitioners are plying their minibuses, the learned counsel on both
sides submitted that the second respondent till date has not conducted the
survey as directed by the first respondent. Therefore, it is appropriate for
this Court to direct the parties to maintain status-quo as on today and at the
same time, this Court further directs the second respondent to comply with
the order passed by the first respondent as already directed by this Court in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.30386 of 2008
W.P.No.10079 to 10083 of 2005 by taking proper survey as per the existing
Government order which is governing both parties.
8.On a careful reading of the order passed by the 2 nd respondent, dated
16.08.2005, it is seen that the 2nd respondent has placed reliance upon the modified
scheme for the Coimbatore District published in the Government Order dated 17.11.1999.
This Government Order was subsequently superseded by G.O.Ms.No.136, dated
23.02.2011, whereby a new comprehensive scheme was introduced. This scheme became
a subject matter of challenge in WP(MD).No.2893 of 2011. This Court through an order
dated 18.04.2018, quashed the Government Order and directed the respondents to redo
the exercise after complying with principles of natural justice. By virtue of this order, the
comprehensive scheme that was introduced on 23.02.2011, became non-est. The order
passed by the learned Single Judge was taken on appeal in WA(MD).No.13/2020 and the
Division Bench through an order dated 07.01.2020, dismissed the appeal and upheld the
order passed by the learned Single Judge. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the
SLP that was filed by the Government also came to be dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex
Court.
9.In view of the above development, there is no scheme that governs the distance
factor for the purpose of running a mini bus.
10.The learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Firm A.T.B. Mehtab Majid and Co., .v.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.30386 of 2008
State of Madras and Another reported in AIR 1963 SC 928 and B.N.Tewari .v.
Union of India and Others reported in AIR 1965 SC 1430, and submitted that once
the comprehensive scheme dated 23.02.2011 is set aside by this Court, that does not
automatically revive the earlier scheme dated 17.11.1999. As rightly contended by the
learned counsel, once the old scheme is substituted by a new scheme, the old scheme
ceased to exist and it will not get automatically revived when the new scheme is held to be
invalid.
11.This Court would have followed the earlier order passed in the batch of writ
petitions, which has been referred supra and remanded the matter back to the file of the
2nd respondent. However, no useful purpose will be served in undertaking that exercise
since the 2nd respondent will not be able to consider the case of the petitioner in the
absence of any scheme in force today. Even though, this Court directed the respondents
to redo the exercise and to come up with a scheme, till date, the said exercise has not
been done.
12.In view of the above discussion, the impugned order passed by the 1 st
respondent, dated 13.11.2008 is hereby set aside. The petitioner is permitted to ply the
mini bus in the existing route. As and when any scheme is introduced / notified by the
respondents, it will be left open to the respondents to deal with the renewal of the permit
in line with the new scheme. Till then, the renewal of the permit to the petitioner can be
granted as was done during the pendency of this writ petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.30386 of 2008
13.In the result, this writ petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
01.08.2022
KP
Internet: Yes
Index: Yes
To
1.The State Transport Appellate Tribunal
High Court Buildings
Chennai.
2.The Regional Transport Authority
Tiruppur Region
Coimbatore District.
3.The Managing Director
Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation
(Coimbatore) Limited.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.30386 of 2008
N.ANAND VENKATESH. J.,
KP
W.P.No.30386 of 2008
01.08.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
