BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 17/12/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA W.P.(MD)No.11645 of 2008 U.M.Esther ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Regional Transport Authority, Kanyakumari District, Kanyakumari. 2.The Secretary, The Regional Transport authority, Marthandam, Kanyakumari. ... Respondents Prayer Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to permit the petitioner's mini bus bearing Reg.No.TN-74-Y-3054 to ply upto Marthandam Bus Stand from Kuzhithurai Via Vettumani and allow the mini bus while plying on the route from Kaliakkavilai to Marthandam bus stand instead of Kuzhithurai to Kaliakkavilai. !For Petitioner ... Mr.A.Arun Prasad ^For Respondents ... Mr.D.Sasikumar Govt. Advocate :ORDER
The petition has been filed to direct the respondents to permit the
petitioner’s mini bus bearing Registration No.TN-74-Y-3054 to ply upto
Marthandam Bus Stand from Kuzhithurai Via Vettumani and allow the mini bus while
plying on the route from Kaliakkavilai to Marthandam bus stand instead of
Kuzhithurai to Kaliakkavilai, by issuing a writ of mandamus.
2. The grievance of the petitioner as aired by the learned Counsel for the
petitioner is to the effect that in accordance with the bus route scheme, the
petitioner was authorised to ply the mini bus from Kuzhithurai to Kaliakkavilai;
Marthandam bus stand is situated 1.4 Kms away from the end of the bus route
meant for the petitioner. As such, if the petitioner is permitted to ply for
that 1.4 Kms also, then the mini bus could reach Marthandam bus stand which
would be beneficial to the general public.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that even the
authority cannot grant permission to the mini bus route over and above 4 Kms,
but only this Court is competent to give direction enabling the petitioner to
ply the total distance of 2 Kms.
4. Heard the learned Government Advocate (Writs) for the respondents.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would place reliance on the
decision of this Court in W.P.No.31835 of 2007 and M.P.No.1 of 2007 dated
20.02.2008. An excerpt from it, would run thus:
“3. As far as the issue namely whether the petitioner would be violating
the rules in operating beyond 4 kms in the served sector is concerned, time and
again, this Court has held that in case of necessity and in public interest such
negligible distance of overlapping beyond 4 kms could be permitted in the larger
public interest. Such view has been stated in the decision reported in
K.Chinnapappu v. M.Mariappa Chettiar (1976-2-M.L.J-329) which was followed in
Navaneetham.P and 2 others v. The Regional Transport Authority, Kamarajar
District at Virudhunagar and another (1994 Writ.L.R.340) on the principle “Law
does not take note of trifles.” The same view was expressed in the recent
decision of Mr.Justice M.E.N.Patrudu in W.P.Nos.804 to 806 of 2006 dated
15.06.06.
4. In these circumstances, the respondent is directed to consider the
petitioner’s application dated 18.08.2005, for variation to operate his Mini Bus
bearing Registration No.TN-27-N-0272 from Seetharampallam School to Tiruchengode
Bus Stand covering the distance of 0.8 kms and pass orders in accordance with
law and in the light of the above referred two decisions, expeditiously,
preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order. Consequently, the connected M.P is closed. No costs.”
6. I am of the considered opinion that unless this Court is satisfied that
there is any violation of rights including the right to conduct business, this
Court will not interfere in matters of this nature. No doubt, what the learned
Counsel for the petitioner submits at the first blush may appear to be
attractive that covering an additional distance of 1.4 Kms mts would be
beneficial to public, so that the people could rightly be taken to Marthandam
bus stand instead of leaving them at a distance of 1.4 Kms away from the
Marthandam bus stand and making them to catch hold some other vehicles to reach
the bus stand.
7. These are matters which are within the realm of administrative
authorities and in whatever manner this has to be processed, the authorities
concerned should consider. Accordingly, the following direction is issued:
On receipt of a copy of this order, the petitioner shall file a
representation before the authority concerned who shall consider it as to how
far this could be re-arranged in such a manner without violating the bus route
scheme and the rules concerned. Accordingly, after giving due opportunity of
being heard to the petitioner, the same shall be disposed of within a period of
one month thereon.
8. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
smn
To
1.The Regional Transport Authority,
Kanyakumari District,
Kanyakumari.
2.The Secretary,
The Regional Transport authority,
Marthandam,
Kanyakumari.