BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 31/07/2006 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI W.P.No.5634 of 2006 and M.P.Nos.1 & 2 Of 2006 S.M.Senthilmurugan ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Regional Transport Authority, Virudhunagar. 2.The Regional Transport Officer, Virudhuanagar. ... Respondents PRAYER Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for records relating to the memo of the second respondent in memo No.339993/A5/2005 dated 23.11.2005, and to quash the same and further direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to operate his Mini stage carriage vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-09-X-8179 to ply on the route Virudhunagar, Mariamman Koil to Kooraikundu and to ply upto the Virudhunagar Bus Stand situated a distance of 200 metres from the Bus Stop near the West Street. !For Petitioner .... Mr.S.Govindaraman ^For Respondents .... Mr.K.Bhaskaran. Additional Government Pleader :ORDER
Mr.K.Bhaskaran, learned Additional Government Pleader, has taken notice on
behalf of the respondents.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the
learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing for the respondent. By consent
of both counsel, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.
3. This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the second
respondent in memo No.339993/A5/2005 dated 23.11.2005, under which, the
permission sought for by the petitioner, who is a permit holder of Mini stage
carriage on the route Virudhunagar, Mariamman Koil to Kooraikundu in respect of
vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-09-X-8179, seeking permission to extend the
route beyond four kilo metres, which according to the petitioner is 200 metres,
so as to reach the old Bus Stand in considering the public interest was
rejected.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would rely upon the Judgement of
this Court reported in 1994 WLR 340, wherein, this Court, while considering the
Provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, has empowered the Authorities to decide
independently the trivial matter including one, which is in issue. The learned
counsel would also rely upon some of the Provisions of the Motor Vehicle Rules,
especially, Rule 245 (12) (I) as well as the Section 72(2) XX of the Motor
Vehicles Act, which enables the permit holder to use the public terminus on
payment of specified rent or charges.
5. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the Authority is empowered
under the law to consider the facts and circumstances of the case in issue. The
learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the authorities may
be permitted to convene a joint survey on the route and find out the solution if
at all is available for the purpose of extending the route either in the public
interest or in any other matter.
6. In view of the same, the impugned order passed by the second respondent
is set aside with a direction to the second respondent to convene a joint survey
of route, for which, the permit issued to the petitioner in the said route
especially in the presence of the petitioner and it is open to the authorities,
namely, the second respondent to decide in respect of granting permit to extend
beyond four kilometres by considering the public interest in accordance with the
Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Act, as well as the Motor Vehicle Rules, as stated
above, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.
7. With the above observations, the writ petition is allowed.
Consequently, the connected M.Ps are closed. No costs.
nb
To
1.The Regional Transport Authority,
Virudhunagar.
2.The Regional Transport Officer,
Virudhuanagar.