High Court Madras High Court

Tamil Nadu State vs Regional Transport on 1 August, 2005

Madras High Court
Tamil Nadu State vs Regional Transport on 1 August, 2005
       

  

  

 
 
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           

Dated: 01/08/2005 

Coram 

THE HON'BLE MR. MARKANDEY KATJU, THE CHIEF JUSTICE            
and 
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA         

W.A. No.854 of 2005 
and W.A.No. 855 of 2005 
and 
W.P.Nos.21431 and 21432 of 2004   


Tamil Nadu State 
Transport
Corporation (Madurai) Ltd.              .. Appellant in both the
Nagercoil Region                           appeals/writ petitioner
rep. by its General Manager.                in both the  W.Ps.

-Vs-

1.  Regional Transport
     Authority
     Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil.

2. V.Chellappan Pillai                          .. Respondents in both
                                                  the appeals & W.Ps.

                Writ Appeals filed under  Clause  15  of  the  Letters  Patent
against  the  orders passed in W.P.M.P.No.25913 of 2004 and W.V.M.P.No.1343 of   
20 04 in W.P.No.21431 of 2004 (W.A.No.854 of 2005); and W.P.M.P.No.25915 /2004    
and W.V.M.P.No.1344 of 2004 in W.P.No.21432 of  2004  (W.A.No.85  5  of  2005)  
dated 24.8.2004.

                Writ  Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying for the issue of writ of Certiorari to call for the  records  of
the    first   respondent   in   R.No.45174/B3/2003,   PSC   No.5/KK/Mini/2004
(W.P.No.21431 of 2004) and in R.No.45173/B3/2003, PSC No.4/KK/Mini/20 04 dated    
16.4.2004 and quash the same.  

!For appellant / :  Mrs.  Kala Ramesh
writ petitioner

^For respondent 1 :  Mr.  V.Raghupathy
                Govt.  Pleader

for respondent 2:  Mr.  N.Gopalakrishnan


:JUDGMENT   

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by
The Honourable The Chief Justice)

These writ appeals have been filed against the impugned interlocutory
order dated 24.8.2004 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition
Nos.21431 and 21432 of 2004.

2. The aforesaid writ petitions were filed against orders of the
Regional Transport Authority renewing the permit.

3. Under Section 89/90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 every order of
the Regional Transport Authority can be challenged by way of

appeal/revision before the State Transport Appellate Authority. Hence there
was a clear right of appeal/revision. The petition should not have been
entertained at all in view of the clear alternative remedy. We have dismissed
a large number of such writ petitions recently. In M/s. Thangamalar
Transports, Sulur, Coimbatore District vs. K. A.G.Travels and others (Writ
Appeal No.1386 of
2005 etc. batch) dated 22.7.2005 and Senthilnayagam vs.
M.Paul Jayaraj and others (W.A.Nos.1
417 and 1418 of 2005) dated 27.7.2005 the
order of the Regional Transport Authority had in fact been quashed by the
learned single Judge against which the writ appeals were filed. We allowed
the writ appeals and dismissed the writ petitions on the ground of alternative
remedy. In these decisions, we have relied on the decisions of the Supreme
Court in S.Jagadeesan vs. A.N.J.A. College, AIR 1984 SC 1512, U.P. State
Bridge Corporation Ltd. vs. U.P.Rajya Setu Nigam Karamchari Sangh,
2005 AIR
SCW 3149 and observed that even if a writ petition has been disposed off,
subsequently the appellate court can dismiss the writ petition on the ground
of alternative remedy, and there is no absolute principle that just because
writ petition has been entertained or allowed thereafter it cannot be
dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. In the present case, the writ
petitioner/appellant had a clear alternative remedy of appeal/revision under
Section 89/90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, but instead it has rushed to
this Court by way of writ petitions.

4. It is settled law that writ is a discretionary remedy and if there
is an alternative remedy, ordinarily it should not be entertained. We
therefore dismiss the writ appeals as well as writ petitions on the ground of
alternative remedy. However, if the appeal/revision is filed by the appellant
before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal within three weeks we direct
that the same shall be disposed off expeditiously preferably within two months
thereafter in accordance with law after hearing the parties concerned. If the
appeal/revision is filed within three weeks from today, the same will be
entertained without raising any objection as to limitation and shall be
decided expeditiously as stated above. Connected miscellaneous petitions are
dismissed.

Index:Yes.

Internet:Yes.

Vu

To

Regional Transport Authority
Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil.