BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22/04/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI W.P.(MD).No.4571 of 2010 W.P.(MD).No.4907 and W.P.(MD).No.5001 of 2010 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1,1 and 1 of 2010 J.Jeyaseelan ... Petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.4571/2010 C.Sengodan ... Petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.4907/2010 K.Boopathy ... Petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.5001/2010 Vs 1.The District Collector -cum- Regional Transport Authority, Tuticorin. 2.The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Tuticorin. ... Respondents in all W.Ps. PRAYER in W.P.(MD)No.4571/2010 Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to permit the petitioner's bus bearing Registration No.TN-69-R-3682 plying on the route Kovilpatti to Thoothukkudi via Kamanayanpatti, Pasuvanthunai, Ottapidaram and Puthiamputhur upto old bus stand via new bus stand even between 06.00 a.m. to 06.00 p.m., every day. PRAYER in W.P.(MD)No.4907/2010 Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to permit the petitioner's buses bearing Registration Nos.TN- 69/T/5577 and TN-69/AZ/1122 on the routes Sankarankovil to Tuticorin (Via) Kovilpatti, Thiruvenkadam etc. & Tuticorin to Masarpatti (Via) Kovilpatti, Irkkankudi, etc. to ply upto old bus stand via new bus stand even between 06.00 a.m. to 06.00 p.m. every day. PRAYER in W.P.(MD)No.5001/2010 Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to permit the petitioner's bus bearing Registration No.TN/67/AA 5577 on the route Tuticorin to Sivakasi (Via) Kovilpatti, Satur etc. to ply upto old bus stand via new bus stand even between 06.00 a.m. to 06.00 p.m. every day. !For Petitioners ... Mr.C.R.Krishnamoorthy ^For Respondents ... Mr.K.M.Vijayakumar Special Government Pleader *******
:COMMON ORDER
*********
Heard Mr.C.R.Krishnamoorthy, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners and Mr.K.M.Vijayakumar, learned Special Government Pleader
appearing for the respondents.
2. In these Writ Petitions, the prayer is to permit the petitioners,
who are the stage carriage permit holders plying from various places to
Thoothukudi, to go upto old bus stand via new bus stand between 06.00 a.m. to
06.00 p.m. every day. While the writ petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.4571 of 2010 is a
stage carriage permit holder in respect of the vehicle bearing Registration
No.TN-69-R-3682 plying on the route from Kovilpatti to Thoothukkudi via
Kamanayanpatti, Pasuvanthunai, Ottapidaram and Puthiamputhur, the writ
petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.4907 of 2010 is a stage carriage permit holder
operating two stage carriage permits covered by the vehicles bearing
Registration Nos.TN-69/T/5577 and TN-69AZ/1122 on the routes Sankarankovil to
Tuticorin (Via) Kovilpatti, Thiruvenkadam etc. & Tuticorin to Masarpatti (Via)
Kovilpatti, Irkkankudi, etc., the writ petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.5001 of 2010 is
a stage carriage permit holder operating the vehicle bearing Registration
No.TN/67/AA 5577 on the route Tuticorin to Sivakasi (Via) Kovilpatti, Satur etc.
3. The common grievance of these petitioners is that the permit
granted to them to ply and reach the destination at Thoothukudi is to terminate
at old bus stand. However, when a new bus stand was constructed by the
Municipality, a restriction was sought to be imposed by the respondents that the
buses reaching Thoothukudi bus stand are to terminate at new bus stand, which
has been constructed, during day time 06.00 a.m. to 06.00 p.m., while during
night time 06.00 p.m. to 06.00 a.m., they are permitted to reach the old bus
stand after touching the new bus stand. This conduct of the respondents is
challenged in these Writ Petitions on the ground that when the original permit
granted in their favour permits them to terminate at old bus stand, the
restriction imposed to the above said effect that during day time 06.00 a.m. to
06.00 p.m., that permit holders are to terminate at new bus stand and it is only
during night time 06.00 p.m. to 06.00 a.m., they should reach the old bus stand
is arbitrary, especially when the State Transport Corporations are permitted to
reach the old bus stand even during day times.
4. It is seen that earlier as per the direction given in a batch of
Writ Petitions in W.P.Nos.13229 of 1992, etc., the first respondent has
conducted an enquiry by giving opportunity to the stage carriage operators and
others and in his proceedings dated 16.10.1999, he has taken such decision. The
said decision taken by the first respondent came to be challenged before this
Court by one of the stage carriage permit holders in W.P.No.1155 of 2005 and
this Court, by an order dated 03.07.2007, on the request of the learned counsel
for the petitioner, giving opportunity to the petitioner to make a
representation to the appropriate authority, has dismissed the Writ Petition. It
is relevant to point out that when such order was passed, the learned counsel
has brought to the notice of this Court that in respect of the State Transport
Undertakings, they are permitted to terminate at old bus stand even during day
times and that right has been denied to the stage carriage permit holders, who
have been granted permit to terminate at old bus stand and it was, in those
circumstances, this Court has permitted the petitioner to make a representation
to the Regional Transport Authority. Based on the said observation of this
Court, it is seen that the said writ petitioner has made a representation to the
Regional Transport Authority as early as on 01.08.2007 bringing to the notice of
the authority that there cannot be a differential treatment between the State
Transport Undertakings and the Stage carriage permit holders and also making out
a case that the public are affected because of the prevention of the stage
carriage permit holders from terminating their vehicles in the old bus stand
during the day times. However, it remains a fact that in spite of such
representations having been given as early as on 01.08.2007, the respondents
have not passed any orders and it is the case of the petitioners, as submitted
by the learned counsel, that the Regional Transport Authority has not even
convened the necessary meetings for the purpose of deciding the issue based on
the representation stated above, which has resulted in depriving of the
petitioners in terminating at old bus stand, while the State Transports are
terminating at old bus stand during the day times, which affect the right of the
petitioners in carrying on that right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the
Constitution of India.
5. In the counter-affidavit filed by the first respondent, while the
first respondent has chosen to state that the decision taken in the year 1999
was due to the reason that at that time, a new bridge was under construction
and, therefore, in order to avoid traffic congestion, such decision was taken
not permitting the stage carriage permit holders to terminate at old bus stand
during the day times. However, during the night time, the traffic congestion was
not difficult and, therefore, permitted them to go upto the old bus stand and
that was the decision taking note of the public interest and also the
convenience of the public at large, which is the basic object of the Tamil Nadu
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. But, now the fact remains, as stated by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, that the construction of the new bridge has come to
an end and in spite of it, an arrangement made in the year 1999 is continuing
and it is certainly distressing to note that in spite of the representations
having been made by the petitioners as early as in the year 2007, the
respondents have not taken note of the change in situation, which is under
obligation under the Motor Vehicles Act, to perform.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would also
submit that since the Regional Transport Authority has not taken note of the
change of circumstances, in spite of lapse of two years, a direction should be
given permitting the petitioners to operate the vehicles during day times upto
the old bus stand and that will be subject to the final decision, which may be
taken by the Regional Transport Authority.
7. To decide about the convenience of public, it is eminently on the
part of the Regional Transport Authority who happens to be the District
Collector who has been entrusted with such duty. It is true that on the facts of
the present case, when the Collector has taken a decision in the year 1999, the
bridge was under construction and, therefore, taking note of the public
interest, such restriction came to be imposed. Of course, having realised the
correctness of that public issue, one of the petitioners, who have earlier
approached this Court, has withdrawn the said Writ Petition with a direction to
make a representation and accordingly, a representation was made in the year
2007. Now that, it is not in dispute that the construction of the bridge is
completed, in all fairness, the Regional Transport Authority ought to have taken
a decision by following the process which are contemplated under the Tamil Nadu
Motor Vehicles Rules, especially Rule 245, the District Collector, the first
respondent herein has not taken such decision, so far, for a period of two
years. However, in my considered view, such delay on the part of the first
respondent does not mean that this Court should give such direction, unless and
until the convenience of public which has to be decided by the District
Collector is ascertained. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the first
respondent should be directed to decide the issue at an early point of time and
pending such decision, it will not be proper for this Court to exercise its
discretion permitting the petitioners to travel the destination upto the old bus
stand.
8. In such view of the matter, the Writ Petitions stand disposed of
with a direction against the first respondent to consider the representations
made by the petitioners dated 01.08.2007 seeking permission to terminate their
vehicles at old bus stand during day time as well as night time, as it is
permitted in respect of stage transport carriages and pass appropriate orders by
following the procedure contemplated under the Rules and such orders shall be
passed by the first respondent within a period of three weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. Making it clear that if such a decision is not
taken within the stipulated time, it will be open to the petitioners to ply
their vehicles upto the old bus stand during day time as well as night time as
per their permit condition. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions
are closed. No costs.
SML
To
1.The District Collector -cum-
Regional Transport Authority,
Tuticorin.
2.The Secretary,
Regional Transport Authority,
Tuticorin.