{"id":164551,"date":"2005-02-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-02-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-the-state-transport-appellate-on-21-february-2005"},"modified":"2017-03-15T17:11:24","modified_gmt":"2017-03-15T11:41:24","slug":"tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-the-state-transport-appellate-on-21-february-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-the-state-transport-appellate-on-21-february-2005","title":{"rendered":"Tamil Nadu State Transport … vs The State Transport Appellate … on 21 February, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Tamil Nadu State Transport … vs The State Transport Appellate … on 21 February, 2005<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDated: 21\/02\/2005 \n\nCoram \n\nThe Honourable Mr.MARKANDEY KATJU, Chief Justice      \nand \nThe Honourable Mr.Justice D.MURUGESAN      \n\nWrit Appeal No. 248 of 2005\nand Writ Appeal No  266 of 2005\nand \nW.A.M.P.Nos. 431 & 471 of 2005  \n\nW.A.No.248 of 2005  \n\nTamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.\nDharmapuri, formerly known as \nAnnai Sathya Transport Corporation Ltd.\nDharmapuri, \nRep. by its Managing Director.                  ...  Appellant\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal\n    Chennai.\n\n2. The State Transport Authority,\n    Chennai.\n\n3. K.Suseelamma                         ..... Respondents\n\nW.A.No.266 of 2005  \n\nThe Managing Director,\nAnnai Sathya Transport Corporation Ltd.\nNow known as  \nTamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.\nDharmapuri.                              Appellant\n\nvs.\n\n1. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal\n    Chennai.\n\n2. The State Transport Authority,\n    Chennai.\n\n3. K.Suseelamma         ...              Respondents\n\n\n        Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the  order\npassed in W.P.Nos.  11607 & 17943 of 1996 dated 10.12.2004.  \n\n!For Appellant .  Mr.R.Thiagarajan\n                Senior Counsel for\n                Mr.V.R.Kamalanathan\n\n^For Respondent3 .  Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan   \n\n:J U D G M E N T \n<\/pre>\n
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE         <\/p>\n
        These  writ  appeals have been filed against the common order dated 10
\n.12.2004 of the learned single Judge in Writ Petition Nos.  11607 & 17 943  of
\n1996.\n<\/p>\n
        2.   Heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the  parties,  and perused the
\nrecords.\n<\/p>\n
        3.  It appears that on 5.6.1962 a stage carriage permit was granted to
\nthe husband of the third respondent  namely,  Mr.K.Ramachandra  Naidu  by  the
\nState  Transport  Authority,  Andhra  Pradesh  duly  counter  signed  by State
\nTransport Authority, Tamil Nadu on single point tax, and renewed from time  to
\ntime upto 04.06.1980.\n<\/p>\n
        4.  On 07.04.1975, the Government of Tamil Nadu by G.O.Ms.No.579, Home
\nDepartment  approved  a  scheme  for  nationalization of the Inter State Route
\nSalem to Chittoor to be operated  by  the  State  Transport  Undertaking  of
\nGovernment  of  Tamil  Nadu,  subject to maximum of 8 permits and minimum of 3
\npermits.  On 03.06.1975, an Inter State Agreement was entered into between the
\nState of Tamil Nadu and the State of Andhra Pradesh,  vide  G.O.    Ms.    No.
\n1000,  Home  Department,  agreeing  for  the  maximum  number of 4 permits and
\nminimum number of 2 permits for the said route.  The Andhra Pradesh permit  of
\nMr.K.Ramachandra  Naidu  for  the  inter  state  route Chittoor to Salem was
\nre-allotted to him.  On 18.06.1975, the approved scheme was published  in  the
\nTamil Nadu Government gazette.  The permit of Mr.K.Ramachandra Naidu was saved
\nunder Entry 40 of Annexure II of the approval scheme.\n<\/p>\n
        5.   Since  the  Draft  Scheme  contemplated  exclusion of all private
\noperators, and reserved all the permits  on  the  said  route  for  the  State
\nTransport  Undertaking,  the  State Transport Authority, Madras by order dated
\n30.07.1980 rejected the application of Mr.  K.Ramachandra Naidu for renewal of
\nthe permit stating  that  the  approved  scheme  completely  excludes  private
\noperators.   The  appeal  of  Mr.K.Ramachandra Naidu was also dismissed by the
\nState Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras by order dated 30.07.1980.\n<\/p>\n
        6.  Against the order dated 30.07.1980, Mr.  K.Ramachandra Naidu filed
\nW.P.No.4343 of 1980, which was allowed by a learned single Judge of this Court
\non 13.10.1982.  Against the order dated 13.10.1982  in  W.P.No.4343  of  1980,
\nM\/s.Anna Transport Corporation preferred an appeal in W.A.No.675 of 1982 which
\nwas dismissed initially, but the matter was taken upto the Supreme Court.  The
\nSupreme  Court remanded the matter to this Court, and ultimately W.A.No.675 of
\n1982 was allowed on 28.1  1.1984  by  a  Division  Bench,  and  the  order  in
\nW.P.No.4343  of  1980  was  set aside and it was held that the nationalization
\nscheme was valid.\n<\/p>\n
        7.  On account of the judgment of the Division  Bench  of  this  Court
\ndated  28.11.1994  in  Writ  Appeal No.675 of 1982, Mr.K.Ramachandra Naidu was
\ndirected to stop operating his  vehicle  on  30.11.1994,  which  he  had  been
\noperating  from  05.06.1980  on  a  temporary  permit on single point tax duly
\ncounter signed by State Transport Authority, Andhra Pradesh.  In  the  vacancy
\ncaused  on account of stoppage of the stage carriage of Mr.K.Ramchandra Naidu,
\nM\/s.  Anna Transport Corporation applied for the permit, and  it  was  granted
\npermit for  the  said  route  on  05.12.1 994.  Aggrieved against the grant of
\npermit in favour of M\/s.Anna Transport Corporation, Mr.   K.Ramachandra  Naidu
\nfiled  a  revision before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras being
\nRevision Petition No.3 of 1995.\n<\/p>\n
        8.  Against the judgment of the Division  Bench  dated  28.11.1994  in
\nWrit Appeal  No.675  of  1982,  Mr.    K.Ramachandra  Naidu filed S.L.P in the
\nSupreme Court, and special leave was granted, and the Civil Appeal  was  taken
\non the file of the Supreme Court as Civil Appeal No.12854 of 1996.\n<\/p>\n
        9.   To  complete the narration of facts, it may be mentioned that Mr.
\nK.Ramachandra Naidu had filed Appeal No.974 of 1980 before the State Transport
\nAppellate Tribunal, Chennai against the order dated 30.07.1980  of  the  State
\nTransport Authority  rejecting his application for renewal of his permit.  The
\nsaid appeal was  dismissed  by  the  State  Transport  Appellate  Tribunal  on
\n25.09.1995.  The petitioners revision petition no.3 of 1995 against the grant
\nof  permit  in favour of M\/ s.Anna Transport Corporation was also dismissed on
\n10.04.1996 by the Tribunal.  Aggrieved against the aforesaid orders, Mr.    K.
\nRamachandra Naidu  filed  Writ  Petition Nos.  11607 & 17943 of 1996, in which
\nthe impugned order has been passed.\n<\/p>\n
        10.  During the pendency of the petition,  Mr.    K.Ramachandra  Naidu
\ndied, and  his  wife  Mrs.    K.Suseelamma  has  been  substituted, and she is
\nrespondent no.3 in these appeals.\n<\/p>\n
        11.  While the aforesaid developments were taking place, the State  of
\nTamil  Nadu  enacted Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Act 41\/92,
\nand the same received the assent of the President of India on 31.07.1992,  and
\nthe said Act came into force with retrospective effect from 04.06.1976.  Under
\nthe provisions of this Act, small operators with less than five Stage Carriage
\nPermits,  who  were  granted  permits, and which were valid between the period
\n04.06.1976 and 30.06.1990, were saved notwithstanding anything contrary in the
\nMotor Vehicles Act, 1939, or the  Motor  Vehicles  Act,  1988,  or  any  draft
\nscheme, or  approved  scheme  thereunder.    The  right of renewal of the said
\npermits was also saved.\n<\/p>\n
        12.  The Supreme Court by order dated  30.10.2003  disposed  of  Civil
\nAppeal No.12854  of  1996.    We  are  quoting the entire order of the Supreme
\nCourt, which reads as follows:  –\n<\/p>\n
       The appellant held a permit on  the  route  Chittoor  to  Salem  (via)
\nPalamaner, V.Kota,  Kuppam, Krishnagiri and Dharmapuri.  The permit expired on
\n5.6.1983 and renewal was applied for vide application dated  31.3.1983  for  a
\nperiod of  five  years.    The  renewal was refused on the ground of the route
\nhaving been nationalized.  The appellant sought for renewal on the ground that
\ninspite of nationalization he was entitled to  renewal  being  a  pre-existing
\noperator and saved from the operation of the scheme.  His plea has been turned
\ndown by  the Transport Authority as also by the High Court.  That is the issue
\narising for decision in this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
        Mr.G.L.Sanghi, learned counsel for the appellant invited our attention
\nto the fact that when this matter was pending in the High Court the Tamil Nadu
\nMotor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Act, 1992 (Act No.41 of  1992)  came  into
\nforce and  was  given  a  retrospective  operations.  He submits that this Act
\nconferred on the appellant herein an additional right for renewal of permit on
\naccount of his being a small operator.  However, still the Transport Authority
\nrejected the prayer for renewal ignoring the provisions of the Act.    A  writ
\npetition  claiming the relief for renewal under Act No.41 of 1992 is stated to
\nbe pending before the High Court of Madras and therein  this  plea  is  to  be
\nadjudicated  upon  as  also the plea that the appellant has been discriminated
\nagainst by denying the prayers for renewal while the prayer for  renewal  made
\nby similarly  situated  operators  have  been  allowed.    The learned counsel
\nfurther submitted that in the event of his plea being upheld by the High Court
\nthe present appeal may be rendered infructuous and may not call for a decision
\non merits.\n<\/p>\n
        The writ petitions filed by the appellant and stated to be pending  in
\nthe High Court  are  CWP  Nos.    11607\/1996 and 17943 of 1996.  It is further
\nsubmitted that the pleadings are complete and  both  the  writ  petitions  are
\nready for hearing.\n<\/p>\n
        In  the  abovesaid  situation,  we request the High Court of Madras at
\nChennai to take up the above said writ petitions for hearing  and  dispose  of
\nthe  same after hearing the learned counsel for the parties as early as it can
\nand in any case within a period of 3 months from the date of this order  being
\nbrought to  the  notice  of the High Court.  We allow the appellant liberty of
\nmaking a mention before the Honble The Chief Justice of the High Court.   The
\nlearned  counsel for the respondent has assured to co-operate with the hearing
\nof the writ petitions in the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
        The hearing in this appeal is adjourned by four  months  awaiting  the
\ndecision by the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
13.   In  pursuance  of the directions of the Supreme Court in its order dated
\n30.10.2003, both the writ petitions (W.P.  Nos.  11607 and 17943 of 1996) were
\ndisposed of by the judgment of the  learned  single  Judge  dated  10.12.2004.
\nAggrieved  against  the  judgment,  these appeals have been filed by the Tamil
\nNadu State Transport Corporation Limited.\n<\/p>\n
        14.  We may mention that Writ Petition No.2656 of 2005  was  filed  by
\nlegal heir  of  Mr.    K.Ramachandra  Naidu  before  this  Court for a Writ of
\nMandamus to grant permit to the petitioner, and stop the vehicle  operated  by
\nthe State Transport Corporation in respect of the route  Salem to Chittoor.
\nBy  interim order dated 29.01.2005, this Court restrained the Corporation from
\nplying its vehicles on the said route.\n<\/p>\n
        15.  Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are  of  the
\nopinion that there is no merit in these appeals.\n<\/p>\n
        16.   No  doubt, if the Tamil Nadu Act 41 of 1992 had not been enacted
\nrespondent no.3 would have no right  to  ply  her  vehicle  on  the  route  in
\nquestion,  since  there  was  total exclusion of private operators on the said
\nroute.  However, the legal position has totally changed after the enactment of
\nTamil Nadu Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions)  Act,  1992  (Act  No.41\/1992).
\nThere  is no dispute that respondent no.3 is a small operator as defined under
\nthe Act.  Tamil Nadu Act 41 of 92, in  our  opinion,  will  prevail  over  the
\nprovisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 or 1988 wherever there is inconsistency
\nin view of Article 254(2 ) of the Constitution of India, since it has received
\nthe assent of the President.\n<\/p>\n
        16.   The  validity  of Tamil Nadu Act 41 of 92 has been upheld by the
\nSupreme Court in Thilagavathy v.  Regional Transport Authority,<\/a> (1995)  1  SCC\n<\/p>\n
456.   The  provisions  contained in the said Act (except Sections 6 & 7) have
\ncome into force with retrospective from 04.06.1976 and remained in force  upto
\n30.06.1990.   Section 3 of the said Act provides that notwithstanding anything
\ncontained in a  draft  scheme  or  approved  scheme,  the  Regional  Transport
\nAuthority  may  on  an  application  in accordance with the Rules made in this
\nbehalf, grant a permit or renew a permit to a small operator to ply his  stage
\ncarriage  on  the entire route covered by the draft scheme or approved scheme,
\nand the Explanation to the said Section defines small operator as  a  person
\nholding  five  or  less stage carriage permits notwithstanding that all or any
\nsuch stage carriage permits had expired after the date of commencement of  the
\nAct.   Section  5 of the said Act provides that Sections 3, 4 and 6 shall have
\neffect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in Chapters V
\nand VI including Section 98 of the Motor Vehicles Act.  Section 9 of the  said
\nAct provides that any reference to any of the provisions or any chapter of the
\nMotor  Vehicles Act shall, for the period between 04.06.1976 and 30.06.1989 be
\nconstrued as reference to the corresponding provisions or chapter of the Motor
\nVehicles Act, 1939 or the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.  Section 10  of  the  said
\nAct also saves all proceedings notwithstanding anything contained in Chapter V
\nor Chapter VI including Section 98 of the Motor Vehicles Act.\n<\/p>\n
        17.   In view of the above provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 41 of 1992
\n, even if the approved scheme dated 07.04.1975  is  valid,  and  excludes  all
\nprivate  operators,  yet  respondent  no.3  being  a small operator is, in our
\nopinion, saved by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 41  of  92,  since  the
\nstage carriage permit, which was granted in favour of Mr.  K.Ramachandra Naidu
\nfor  the  route  in question, was renewed and was valid upto 04.06.1980, which
\ndate falls between the two crucial dates namely,  04.06.1976  and  30.06.1990.
\nHence, in  our  opinion,  K.  Ramachandra Naidu (and after his death his legal
\nheir i.e., his wife, who is  the  third  respondent  in  these  appeals),  was
\nentitled  to  renewal  of  the  said  permit despite the approved scheme dated
\n07.04.1975.  Thus, we are of the opinion that  the  judgment  of  the  learned
\nsingle Judge is entirely correct.\n<\/p>\n
18.   In  the  result,  we  see  no  force  in  the  writ appeals and they are
\ndismissed.  No costs.  Consequently, W.A.M.Ps are also dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Index:Yes
\nInternet:Yes<\/p>\n
pv\/<\/p>\n
Copy to:\n<\/p>\n
1.  The State Transport Appellate Tribunal
\nChennai.\n<\/p>\n
2.  The State Transport Authority,
\nChennai.\n<\/p>\n
3.  The Managing Director,
\nAnnai Sathya Transport Corporation Ltd.\n<\/p>\n
Now known as
\nTamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.\n<\/p>\n
Dharmapuri.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Tamil Nadu State Transport … vs The State Transport Appellate … on 21 February, 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 21\/02\/2005 Coram The Honourable Mr.MARKANDEY KATJU, Chief Justice and The Honourable Mr.Justice D.MURUGESAN Writ Appeal No. 248 of 2005 and Writ Appeal No 266 of 2005 and W.A.M.P.Nos. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-164551","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nTamil Nadu State Transport ... vs The State Transport Appellate ... on 21 February, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-the-state-transport-appellate-on-21-february-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Tamil Nadu State Transport ... vs The State Transport Appellate ... on 21 February, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-the-state-transport-appellate-on-21-february-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2005-02-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-15T11:41:24+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-the-state-transport-appellate-on-21-february-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-the-state-transport-appellate-on-21-february-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Tamil Nadu State Transport … vs The State Transport Appellate … on 21 February, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-02-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-15T11:41:24+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-the-state-transport-appellate-on-21-february-2005\"},\"wordCount\":2011,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-the-state-transport-appellate-on-21-february-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-the-state-transport-appellate-on-21-february-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-the-state-transport-appellate-on-21-february-2005\",\"name\":\"Tamil Nadu State Transport ... vs The State Transport Appellate ... on 21 February, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-02-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-15T11:41:24+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-the-state-transport-appellate-on-21-february-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-the-state-transport-appellate-on-21-february-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-the-state-transport-appellate-on-21-february-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Tamil Nadu State Transport … vs The State Transport Appellate … on 21 February, 2005\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Tamil Nadu State Transport ... vs The State Transport Appellate ... on 21 February, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-the-state-transport-appellate-on-21-february-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Tamil Nadu State Transport ... vs The State Transport Appellate ... on 21 February, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-the-state-transport-appellate-on-21-february-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-02-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-15T11:41:24+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-the-state-transport-appellate-on-21-february-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-the-state-transport-appellate-on-21-february-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Tamil Nadu State Transport … vs The State Transport Appellate … on 21 February, 2005","datePublished":"2005-02-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-15T11:41:24+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-the-state-transport-appellate-on-21-february-2005"},"wordCount":2011,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-the-state-transport-appellate-on-21-february-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-the-state-transport-appellate-on-21-february-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-the-state-transport-appellate-on-21-february-2005","name":"Tamil Nadu State Transport ... vs The State Transport Appellate ... on 21 February, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-02-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-15T11:41:24+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-the-state-transport-appellate-on-21-february-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-the-state-transport-appellate-on-21-february-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-the-state-transport-appellate-on-21-february-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Tamil Nadu State Transport … vs The State Transport Appellate … on 21 February, 2005"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/164551","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=164551"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/164551\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=164551"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=164551"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=164551"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}