Madras High Court
B.Narayanamoorthy vs The Regional Transport Authority on 23 June, 2025
Author: N. Sathish Kumar
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar
CRP.No.325 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated 23.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
CRP.No.325 of 2025
and CMP.No.2081 of 2025
B.Narayanamoorthy .. Petitioner
Versus
The Regional Transport Authority
Kanchipuram .. Respondent
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside
the order dated 30.05.2014 passed in M.V.Appeal No.3 of 2013 on the file of the
learned State Transport Appellate Tribunal.
For petitioner : Mrs.Radha Gopalan, Senior Counsel
for Mr.K.Hariharan
For respondents : Mrs.R.Anitha
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
Challenge has been made to the judgment passed by the State Transport
Appellate Tribunal in M.V.Appl.No.3 of 2013 dated 30.05.2014 remanding the
matter back to the Regional Transport Authority, Kancheepuram, the present
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 07:31:01 pm )
revision has been filed.
2. The case of the revision petitioner is that he is a stage carrier operator
plying two stage carriages in Tiruvannamalai region and one stage carriage in
Kancheepuram region. He has one spare bus in Tiruvannamalai region, similarly,
he has one spare route bus in Kancheepuram region. Thus, revision petitioner is
having two spare buses permit issued by the Regional Transport Authority,
Tiruvannamalai and Kancheepuram respectively. In the order of the Regional
Transport Authority, Kancheepuram has held that the permit holder suppressing
the fact that he is already having a spare bus permit since 1992 issued by the
Regional Transport Authority, Tiruvannamalai, fraudulently got one more spare
bus permit at Kancheepuram, w.e.f., 01.11.2024 and thereafter, cancelled the spare
bus permit issued in respect of vehicle TN 25/R 9393. The appellate Tribunal has
set aside the order and remitted the matter back to the RTA, Kancheepuram mainly
on the ground that rules of natural justice has not been followed. Challenging the
same, the present revision has been filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 07:31:01 pm )
3. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that though one of
the ground raised is the violation of principle of natural justice, according to her,
the petitioner is having one spare route bus permit issued by the Regional
Transport Authority, Tiruvannamalai intended to operate on the routes Tirutani to
Arni, Cheyaar to Gingee and the same cannot be operated in the Kancheepuram
District. Similarly, the permit issued by the Regional Transport Authority,
Kancheepuram is intended for the routes of Kancheepuram to Tindivinam. She
brought to the notice of this Court that the Rule 176 (7) of Tamil Nadu Motor
Vehicles Rules, 1989 does not say that for the purpose of calculating the number
of stage carriage permits held by the operator, permits issued by all the Regional
Transport Authorities in Tamil Nadu shall be taken into account.
4. Her main contention is that permit has been issued by the Regional
Transport Authority of the region. Even the vehicles plying in two or more regions
lying within the same State, the application has to be made to the Regional
Transport Authority of the region in which the major portion of the proposed route
or area lies as per Section 69 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. As per Section 72
(xvii), the vehicles to be kept as reserve by the holder of the permit to maintain the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 07:31:01 pm )
operation and to provide for special occasions. Hence, it is the contention that the
very object of the spare bus is to maintain the operation and to provide for special
occasions as per Section 72 (xvii) of the Motor Vehicles Act . Section 88 of the
Motor Vehicles Act clearly stipulates that except as may be otherwise prescribed,
a permit granted by the Regional Transport Authority of any one region shall not
be valid in any other region, unless the permit has been countersigned by the
Regional Transport Authority of that other region. Hence, it is the contention that
permits under Sections 69, 70 & 72 as the countersign is not required. Further,
Section 96 (xi) clearly stipulates that the conditions subject to which and the
extent to which, a permit granted in one region shall be valid in another region
within the State without counter-signature. Therefore, the Appellate Tribunal
remanding the matter on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice will
not serve any purpose, since, the entire materials has been placed before the
appellate authority. If proper interpretation is made by the judicial minds, the same
will address the issue. Hence, seeks for allowing this revision.
5. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, as per Rule 176(7)
of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, the petitioner is entitled to one
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 07:31:01 pm )
spare bus, wherein, the petitioner has two permits. Therefore, the original
authority has passed the order canceling the spare bus permit issued to the revision
petitioner.
6. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record.
7. Now, the point arises for consideration is as follows:
(i) whether remand order passed by the appellate tribunal is proper and
require interference before this Court?
Point (i)
8. This Court is not going into the issue of interpreting various sections
pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, since, no findings have
been recorded by the learned Appellate Tribunal. Whether the petitioner can have
two spare buses for two different regions are purely a matter of interpretation on
considering various provisions particularly, Sections 69, 70, 72, 72(xvii) and
96(xi)and 88(1) and Rules 176, 172, 176 (7) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles
Rules, 1989. Such interpretation can be made only by the Appellate Tribunal and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 07:31:01 pm )
cannot leave the same to the original transport authority and leaving it to the
transport authority will not serve any purpose.
9. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the order of remand is liable to be
set aside and the same stands quashed. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal is
directed to pass a detailed order de novo considering the various provisions stated
above and come to the conclusion as to whether the revision petitioner is entitled
to permit for 2 spare buses within a period of three months from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order.
10. Accordingly, this revision stands allowed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.
23.06.2025
Index : Yes / No
Speaking/non speaking order
dhk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 07:31:01 pm )
To,
1.The Regional Transport Authority, Kancheepuram
2.The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Chennai
3. The Section Officer
VR Section, Madras High Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 07:31:01 pm )
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
dhk
23.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 07:31:01 pm )
