Madras High Court
P.Lakshmi vs The Secretary on 15 June, 2022
W.P(MD).No.9215 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 15.06.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR
W.P(MD).No. 9215 of 2022
P.Lakshmi .. Petitioner
Vs.
The Secretary,
The Regional Transport Company Cum District Collector,
Thoothukudi. ... Respondent
Prayer: This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuing a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records
pertaining to the impugned order passed in M.V.Appeal No.45 / 2021,
dated 14.12.2021 by the State Appellate Tribunal, Chennai and set aside
the same and subsequently direct the respondents to grant the Mini Stage
Carriage Permit for the route Kayathar to Kallappapatty on her application,
dated 14.06.2019.
For Petitioner : Mr. R.Murugapoopathy
For respondent : Mr. S. Kameswaran
Government Advocate
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.9215 of 2022
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking a Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned
order passed in M.V.Appeal No.45 of 2021, dated 14.12.2021 by the State
Appellate Tribunal, Chennai and set aside the same and subsequently,
direct the respondent to grant the Mini Stage Carriage Permit for the route
Kayathar to Kallappapatty based on her application, dated 14.06.2019.
2. The petitioner had applied for grant of one Mini Bus permit to
ply on the route Kayathar to Kalappapatty (via), Thaliyail Nadanthankulam
Vilakku, Thalaiyal Nadanthankulam, Veppankulam Vilakku, Veppankulam.
In her application she had stated that one Mini bus permit on the route
Kayathar old Bus stand, which has stopped its operation due to non
renewal of permit and the route is now kept vacant and as such, the
petitioner has desired to serve the public and applied for a new mini bus
grant so as to resume service on the above said route. The Motor Vehicle
Inspector inspected that route and reported that the served sector of the
route applied for, constitute with 9.2 Kms and the un-served sector is 2.4
Kms and thereafter, Regional Transport Authority considering the same
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.9215 of 2022
rejected the application on the ground that the served sector exceeds the
norms.
3. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner had made
an application on 14.02.2019 and since her application was kept pending
without any consideration, she had filed W.P(MD).No.7002 of 2019 and
the same was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 14.06.2019
directing the respondent to dispose of the petitioner's application within a
period of eight weeks. Thereafter, the Regional Transport Authority had
passed an order, dated 21.09.2021. Before passing order, enquiry was held
and the petitioner had appeared on 23.06.2020 and made her submissions
and given details that the route length 11.1 Kms and served Sector is
4.0 kms and un-served sector is 7.1 kms and also given the route details.
Thereafter, Regional Transport Officer, Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation, Kovilpatti had sent a letter, dated 09.07.2020 giving the
details that the said route from Kayathar Bus stand to
Thalaiyalnadanthankulam of 5.4 Kms was served by the Corporation buses
and it has been duly stopped and will be resumed for operation on
requirement and hence, only the Veppankulam to
Thalaiyalnadanthankulam sector of 2.4 kms is un served by them.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.9215 of 2022
Thereafter, the petitioner again appeared on 27.07.2021 along with her
husband and made their submissions. Following the G.O.Ms.Nos.1523 to
1549 (Home) TR.III Dept. Dated 17.11.1999, the Regional Transport
Appellate Authority held that the petitioner is not entitled to be granted
mini bus permit on the route and rejected the application. Aggrieved over
the same, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the State Transport
Appellate Tribunal, Chennai in M.V. Appeal No. 45 of 2021 and the same
was dismissed by confirming the order of Regional Transport Authority,
Thoothukudi.
4. The further contention of the petitioner is that the served
sector was only 4 kms when the applicant had made applications in the
year 2009 and thereby, the petitioner had qualified and eligible for the
route, 10 years, thereafter, during the mid of the enquiry, based on the the
letter of the Transport Corporation, Regional Transport Authority rejected
the application of the petitioner stating that the distance between Kayathar
(Old bus Stand) to Kalappapaatti (via), Thalaiyalnadanthankulam 5.4 kms
was served by the corporation buses. But, admitted that it is temporarily
stopped want of patronage further depending upon the requirement, in
future shall commence operations which is not proper, the reason is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.9215 of 2022
presumptive. Hence, the petitioner very much qualified, for eligibility of
getting mini bus permit. He further submitted that as per Section 70 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, the petitioner ought to have been given an opportunity
since the reduction in the served sector had occurred due to the inordinate
delay in disposing the the petitioner's application which was a future
development. The petitioner on the date of application rightly applied
with only 4 Kms and the 1 Kms of un served sector. Hence, the petitioner
to be given an opportunity in the modification of the route, and not to
have refused the grant of permit. He relied on the Judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court reported in AIR 1992 SC 442 held that introduction of any
number of new buses will be in the interest of travelling public and
therefore, the question of unhealthy competition does not arise.
5. The respondent filed his counter and submitted that to
implement the “Mini Bus Scheme” the Government of Tamil Nadu notified
“Approved modified Area Scheme 1999” in G.O.Ms.Nos.1523 to 1549 (H)
Tr. III Dept dated 17.11.1999 wherein an exclusion clause is provided as
follows:
“The permits of mini bus operations or
the operator to operate mini bus in rural areas of
the district where no stage carriage service are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.9215 of 2022
provided upto a route length of not exceeding 20
Kilometers with an overlapping distance not
exceeding 4 kms on the route where stage carriage
are operating.”
6. In this case, the stage carriage service is very much available
for 5.4 Kms from Kayatharu to Thalaiyalnadanthankulam and it could be
seen from the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Thirunelveli, Letter
dated 09.07.2000. The contention of the petitioner that earlier the
petitioner had filed W.P(MD).No.7002 of 2019 and this Court by order
dated 13.02.2019 directed the respondent to consider the application of the
petitioner and pass orders and thereafter, the Regional Transport Authority
conducted enquiry and rejected, gave finding the petitioner is not qualified.
As per G.O.Ms.No.s.1523 to 1549(H) Tr III Dept, dated 17.11.1999 the un
served route is now only 2.4 kms and hence, the Regional Transport
Authority had rejected the application of the petitioner. He further
submitted that presently, the policy of the Government is not to entertain
any mini bus permits.
7. Considering the submissions it is seen that the petitioner had
filed an application on 14.02.2019 and it was kept pending. Thereafter, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.9215 of 2022
petitioner filed W.P(MD).No.7002 of 2019 before this Court, this Court by
order dated 13.02.2019, directed the respondent to consider the application
of the petitioner and pass orders, thereafter, the Regional Transport
Authority conducted enquiry, rejected the application of the petitioner,
Since the unserved route is not as per G.O.Ms.No.s.1523 to 1549(H) Tr III
Dept, dated 17.11.1999. Presently, the un served route is only 2.4 Kms,
the requirement is 4 Kms, hence, the Regional Transport Authority had
rejected the application of the petitioner and thereafter, the State Transport
Appellate Tribunal confirmed the same. The State Transport Corporation
had given a letter dated 09.07.2000 stating that the route sought for by the
petitioner for 11.1 kms in which the Transport Corporation is serving 5.4
kms. Hence, thereby, the petitioner's permit could not be entertained.
Further, the Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade – I, Kovilpatti, conducted route
survey along with Junior Engineer, Panchayat Union Office, Kayathar and
Branch Manager of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Kovilpatti
Branch gave their report. The rejection of the petitioner's application is
for the reason, State Transport Corporation had commenced the service for
5.4 kms in the route applied for. The contention of the petitioner is that,
had the petitioner's application considered within reasonable time, earlier
he would have become eligible, for the delay of the respondent. Keeping
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.9215 of 2022
the application pending for 10 years, the petitioner cannot be penalized.
Further due to changed circumstances she ought to have been given an
opportunity under Section 70 of the Motor Vehicles Act to file a modified
application. Hence, the rejection order passed against the petitioner
confirmed by the State Appellate Tribunal are hereby set aside. The
petitioner is permitted to file a modified application seeking a grant of mini
bus permit and thereafter, the respondent is directed to consider the same
and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, without delay of
course giving personal hearing.
8. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No
costs.
15.06.2022
trp
Index : yes / No
Internet: yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.9215 of 2022
M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J.,
trp
W.P(MD).No. 9215 of 2022
15.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
