{"id":27716,"date":"2003-08-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-08-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-srinivasan-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-on-7-august-2003"},"modified":"2015-03-29T21:23:12","modified_gmt":"2015-03-29T15:53:12","slug":"r-srinivasan-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-on-7-august-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-srinivasan-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-on-7-august-2003","title":{"rendered":"R.Srinivasan vs State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By on 7 August, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
R.Srinivasan vs State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By on 7 August, 2003<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 07\/08\/2003\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.B.SUBHASHAN REDDY, CHIEF JUSTICE\nAND\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.MURUGESAN\n\nW.P.No.23854 of 2001\nand W.P.Nos. 23880, 23881, 24238, 24239, 24863, 24865, 24875, 24901\nto 24909, 24925 to 24935, 24968 to 24971, 24973 to 24977, 25000 to\n2 5010, 25012 to 25027, 25045 to 25055, 25060 to 25068, 25070 to 25079, 25091\nto 25098, 25102 to 25104, 25106, 25107, 25113 to 25117, 25119 to 25130,\n25143 to 25147, 25149 to 25153, 25157 to 25163, 25165 to 25177, 25187 to\n25189, 25191 to 25205, 25243 to 25246, 25386 to 25390, 25420 to 25425,\n25427 to 25433, 25454, 25456, 25469, 25470, 25489 to 25491, 25494 to 25496, 25519\nto 25521, 25529 to 25534, 25536, 25545 to 25561, 25565, 25566, 25594 to\n25599, 25604 to 25608, 25611 to 25614 , 25619 to 25621, 25624 to 25628, 25632\nto 25634, 25646 to 25704, 257 11, 25712, 25719 to 25730, 25732, 25734 to\n25754, 25756, 25757, 25760 to 25773, 25775 to 25782, 25785, 25786, 26479 to\n26490 of 2001, 29, 91 to 94, 106, 107, 138 to 150, 184, 204 to 206, 229 to 233, 243 to 2\n47, 251 to 255, 260 to 264, 288 to 293, 498 to 502, 528 to 537, 547\nto 562, 600 to 609, 663 to 670, 695 to 699, 727 to 742, 770, 804\nto 80 9, 814, 815, 817 to 826, 829 to 833, 839 to 842, 857, 879, 886 to\n892 , 923, 932 to 936, 1028 to 1034, 1045, 1050 to 1058, 1065 to 1069,\n11 04, 1141, 1149 to 1154, 1163 to 1169, 1177 to 1193, 1210 to 1214,\n1249 to 1254, 1266, 1275 to 1285, 1295 to 1297, 1299 to 1304, 1306 to\n1310, 1312, 1345, 1346, 1381 to 1390, 1393 to 1403, 1409 to 1412, 1432\nto 1448, 1454 to 1457, 1468 to 1473, 1477, 1484, 1485, 1487 to 1489,\n1538 to 1544, 1568 to 1571, 1577, 1599 to 1602, 1607 to 1615, 1625\nto 1628, 1633 to 1638, 1657, 1658, 1665, 1668 to 1678, 1700, 1713 to\n17 17, 1788, 1893 to 1895, 1917 to 1920, 2098, 2100, 2148, 2168, 2207,\n2491, 2544 to 2546, 2579 to 2583, 2698 to 2701, 2730 to 2735, 2739,\n2746 to 2749, 2802, 2836, 2865, 2939 to 2943, 3004, 3005 to 3007, 3096 to\n3100, 3103 to 3108, 3110, 3115 to 3121, 3137, 3216 to 3218, 3228, 3229,\n3255, 3256, 3442, 3443, 3474, 3499, 3500, 3686, 3691, 3742, 3743,\n3781 to 3785, 4085, 4249, 4285, 4322 to 4327, 4338, 4354, 4374,\n4382 to 4385, 4408, 4409, 4413, 4416, 4510, 4665 to 4667, 4693 to 4695,\n4723 to 4725, 4753, 4835, 5002, 5028, 5086 to 5088, 5257 to 5260,\n52 68 to 5273, 5459, 5514 to 5517, 5567, 5573 to 5579, 5599 to 5601,\n5625, 5686 to 5690, 5736 to 5741, 5772 to 5775, 5785, 5872, 5893, 5894, 6047\nto 6050, 6242, 6243, 6247, 6293 to 6296, 6576 to 6580, 6667 to\n6670, 6724, 6745, 6867 to 6869, 6885, 6931, 6999, 7020, 7148 to 7152, 7247,\n7416, 7417, 7657, 7658, 7829, 7833, 7974, 7978 to 7983, 8253,\n8254, 8471, 9336, 9685, 19149 to 19153, 21073, 22495, 22876, 22877, 22\n920, 23321, 25412, 29357, 31568, 31842, 32431, 32925, 33341, 34509,\n34510, 36827 to 36831 of 2002\n\n\nW.P.No.23854 of 2001:\n\nR.Srinivasan                                   ..      Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by\n   Secretary\n   Home Department\n   Fort St. George\n   Chennai-9\n\n2. Regional Transport Authority\n   Villupuram District\n   Villupuram                                   ..      Respondents\n\n        Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the  Constitution  of  India,\npraying  for the issue of a Writ of Declaration declaring the Tamil Nadu Motor\nVehicles (Special Provisions) (Cancellation  of  Variation  of  conditions  of\nPermit)  Act,  1996  is  unconstitutional,  ultra  vires  and  void  and for a\nconsequential direction to the second respondent to permit the  petitioner  to\noperate  his stage carriage service bearing Regn.No.TN-57-Z-2289 on the varied\nroute Melpattampakkam to Villupuram (via) Valavanur and Kolianoor  Cross  Road\nas   per   the   order   of   the  second  respondent  dated  9.4.96  made  in\nR.No.16703\/A2\/95.\n\n!For Petitioners::      Mr.K.Alagirisamy, learned\n                        Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Palani,\n                        Mr.M.Krishnappan,\n                        Mr.C.R.Krishnamoorthy,\n                        Mrs.Radha Gopalan,\n                        Mr.R.S.Ramanujam,\n                        Mr.P.Vedavalle,\n                        Mr.T.Padmanabhan,\n                        Mr.S.Govindraman,\n                        Mr.R.Natesan,\n                        Mr.S.C.Palanisamy,\n                        Mr.V.Sanjeevi,\n                        Mr.V.A.Sadagopan,\n                        Mr.K.Hariharan,\n                        Mr.S.Parthasarathy,\n                        Mr.N.Gopalakrishnan,\n                        Mr.K.M.Venugopal\n                        and Mr.S.Venugopal\n\n^For Respondents ::     Mr.R.Muthukumaraswamy,\n                        Additional Advocate General\n                        assisted by Mr.V.Raghupathi\n                        Government Pleader\n\n:COMMON ORDER\n\nD.MURUGESAN, J.\n<\/pre>\n
        In all these writ petitions, the respective  petitioners  have  prayed
\nfor  writ  of  declaration  declaring  the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles ( Special
\nProvisions) (Cancellation of Variation of Conditions  of  Permit)  Act,  1996,
\n(Act  19  of  1996)  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  the  “Impugned  Act”)  is
\nunconstitutional, ultra vires  and  void  and  have  consequently  prayed  for
\ndirections  to  the  respective  Regional  Transport Authorities to permit the
\npetitioners to operate their stage carriage services on the respective  routes
\nbased on variations granted prior to the ” Impugned Act”.\n<\/p>\n
        2.  In order to appreciate the challenge, certain facts leading to the
\nimpugned enactment  must  necessarily  be  stated.   After the introduction of
\nChapter IV-A in the Motor Vehicles  Act  1939,  the  State  Government  framed
\nvarious Schemes  notifying  different routes during the year 1976.  The Scheme
\nenabled operators mentioned in Schedule II alone to operate apart  from  State
\nTransport Undertakings.   Pursuant to the publication of the draft Scheme, all
\nother private stage carriage operators were excluded from operating  any  part
\nof the  notified  routes.   Since there was bifurcation of various routes, the
\nState Transport Authorities issued new permits and also renewed  the  existing
\npermits for  those  routes.    Such routes also traversed part of the notified
\nroutes.  New permits and renewal of the existing permits were granted  on  the
\nimpression  that  exclusion  of private operators under the Scheme was partial
\nonly.  The grant of new permits and  the  renewal  of  existing  permits  were
\nchallenged  by  the  State  Transport Undertaking on the ground that after the
\npublication of the draft Scheme, all private  stage  carriage  operators  were
\nexcluded from  operating  even  on  any  part of the notified route.  The said
\nchallenge was upheld and it was declared that such  permits  which  overlapped
\neven a  portion  of  the notified route were invalid.  One of the operators by
\nname M.A.Egappan who got permit to operate on  a  non  notified  route,  while
\nobtaining the renewal of permit got permission to ply on a route part of which
\noverlapped  the  notified  route, approached this Court, but was unsuccessful.
\nThe matter was taken to the Apex Court and the Apex Court in the  judgment  in
\n“PANDIYAN ROADWAYS CORPORATION  LTD.    v.   M.A.EGAPPAN<\/a> 1987 (2) SCC 47″ held
\nthat no person other than those mentioned in Annexure II to the  draft  Scheme
\ncan  operate  the  stage  carriage service on the entire notified route or any
\npart thereof apart from the State  Transport  Undertaking.    The  Apex  Court
\nfollowing  the decision of a Constitution Bench in “ADARSH TRAVELS BUS SERVICE
\nv.  STATE OF U.P.<\/a>  (1985 (4) SCC  557)”  further  declared  that  the  permits
\ngranted to stage carriage operators, which overlapped any part of the notified
\nroute were  invalid.    In  view of the said judgment, approximately more than
\n4000 permits of private operators were rendered invalid.\n<\/p>\n
        3.  The State Government was  approached  by  such  of  those  private
\noperators  with  a  grievance  that even small operators having less than five
\npermits were necessarily to take  the  vehicles  off  the  road  which  caused
\nhardship.   The  State  Government  considering the above plea and also taking
\nnote of the hardship and inconvenience caused to  the  travelling  public  and
\nalso the difficulty by the State or the Undertaking to replace the vehicles as
\nit  involved  heavy  expenditure,  issued the Government Order No.2222 of 1997
\nsometime during July 1997 entitling the State Transport Authorities to renew t
\nhe permits of such operators and also requested the Transport Undertaking  not
\nto oppose  such renewal of permits.  In fact a Bill was introduced in L.A.Bill
\nNo.42 of 1987 with an object to grant permits to small operators to ply  their
\nstage  carriage  on  any portion of the area or the route covered by the draft
\nScheme or the approved Schemes.  Though the said  Bill  was  assented  by  the
\nPresident, it was not published and hence it never came into force.\n<\/p>\n
        4.   While the matter stood at that stage, the Motor Vehicles Act, 193
\n9, was repealed and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Act 59 of 1988) was  enacted
\nand the  same  came  into  force  from 1.7.89.  The said Act permitted pending
\nSchemes to be published and approved within the year of expiry of which it was
\nto lapse.  Therefore the Schemes were to be approved on or before 30.6.90.  In
\nview of the Act 59 of 1988 requiring the approval of the Schemes under the Act
\nas well the law laid down by the Apex Court in  Pandiyan  Roadways  case,  the
\nprivate  operators  were  disabled  from plying on the notified route and as a
\nnecessary corollary, the Government Order No.2222 of 1987 had to be withdrawn.
\nThe State Government, therefore, issued G.O.Ms.No.1794  during  August  19  90
\nwithdrawing the  earlier  order no.2222 of 1987.  Consequently, L.A.Bill No.42
\nof 1987 was repealed by an ordinance issued on 8.10.90.  In view of the  above
\ndevelopments,  the  small  operators were once again placed with difficulty in
\noperating their vehicles and consequently were forced to take the vehicles off
\nthe road.  Batch of writ petitions were filed seeking for a direction  to  the
\nState  Government  to  publish L.A.Bill No.42 of 1987 and also challenging the
\nvalidity of the Government Order issued on  8.10.90  withdrawing  the  earlier
\nGovernment Order  of  1987.    All these writ petitions were dismissed by this
\nCourt.  Thereafter, the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions)  Repeal
\nAct, 1991  was  passed  repealing  L.A.Bill  No.42  of  1987.    The aggrieved
\noperators numbering approximately 4000 who were  granted  permits  overlapping
\nnotified  routes  after 1976 approached the Apex Court under Article 32 of the
\nConstitution of India for different reliefs.   At  that  juncture,  the  State
\nGovernment  enacted  the  Tamil  Nadu Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Act,
\n1992 (Act No.41 of 1992) validating  all  permits  issued  renewal  variations
\ngranted between  4.6.76  and  30.6.9 0.  By the said enactment, permits issued
\nafter  30.6.90  but  before  31  .7.92  i.e.,  the  date  of  publication   of
\nnotification,  were  not  validated  and  two  classes of small operators were
\ncreated in view of cutoff date.  The classification was  challenged  by  those
\noperators who had been issued permits after 30.6.90 on the ground that cut-off
\ndate  was  arbitrary and there could not be any classification between classes
\nof operators.  The said contention was repelled  by  the  High  Court  on  the
\nground that the cut-off date namely 30.6.90 was rational as the Motor Vehicles
\nAct,  1939,  was  repealed  and the new Act came into force from 1.7.89 with a
\nprovision that the Schemes pending on the date when the Act  came  into  force
\nwould  be  valid only for a period of one year namely 30.6.90 unless they were
\napproved and published by the State Government.   The  said  Act  41  of  1992
\nultimately  came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the judgment in
\n“TMT.T.P.K.  THILAGAVATHI v.  REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PERIYAR  DISTRICT,
\nERODE  AND  OTHERS  (1995 (1) SCC 456)” and the Apex Court held that no permit
\ncould have been granted after 30.6.90 and the orders rejecting the request  of
\nthe operators for new permits after 30.6.90 by the State Transport Authorities
\nwere sustained.\n<\/p>\n
        5.  All  the  writ  petitioners  are stage carriage operators.  Though
\nthey applied for variation of conditions of permits in terms  of  sub  section
\n(2) of section 6 of the Act 41 of 1992, those applications were not considered
\nsince the  Government  did  not  frame  rules.   The Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles
\n(Special Provisions) Rules, 1995, were framed in G.O.Ms.No.718 Home (Transport
\nIII) Department dated 18.5.95.  An amendment was also made to the  said  Rules
\nby notification  issued  in  G.O.   Ms.No.1935 Home (Transport III) Department
\ndated 29.12.95 adding an explanation to Rule 4.  By  such  amendment,  certain
\nenumerated variations  were  included in the explanation.  A further amendment
\nto the first proviso of sub rule (4) of Rule 4 was made in G.O.Ms.No.26 Home (
\nTransport  III)  Department  dated  6.1.96  by  restricting  the  distance  of
\nvariation upto 24 kms., only in respect of items (c) and (e) of the proviso to
\nsub rule (4) of Rule 4.  By the said Rules, Section 6(2) of the Act 41 of 1992
\nrelating  to variation of conditions of permits for stage carriage by enabling
\nthe permit holder to operate on the entire route or any portion of  the  route
\ncovered by  such  draft  Scheme was given effect to.  Rule 4 of the said Rules
\nempowered the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority to
\nconsider the application for grant of variation subject to the condition  that
\nthe distance  covered  by such variation shall not exceed 24 kms.  Pursuant to
\nthe said rules, the requests of each of the petitioners  for  variations  were
\nconsidered  and such variations were granted between 24.1.96 and 24.5.96 to as
\nmany as 2000 permit holders.  The variations were granted on the  ground  that
\nthe  applications  for  variations  cannot  be treated as grant of new permits
\nthough the procedures adopted for grant of new permits are being  adopted  for
\ngrant  of  consideration  of  applications  for  variations also in the public
\ninterest.  Pursuant to the variations granted, the petitioners commenced their
\noperation.   By  the  Tamil   Nadu   Motor   Vehicles   (Special   Provisions)
\n(Cancellation  of Variation of Conditions of Permit) Act, 1996, the variations
\ngranted to the  petitioners  were  legislatively  cancelled.    By  individual
\nproceedings of the respective Transport Authorities, the petitioners were duly
\ninformed  to  produce  the  permits  of  stage  carriage  services  for making
\ncancellation of various entries.  Hence, these writ petitions have been filed.\n<\/p>\n
        6.  The Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles (Special  Provisions)  (Cancellation
\nof  Variation  of Conditions of Permit) Act, 1996, is challenged mainly on the
\nground that it lacks legislative competency, excessive legislation inasmuch as
\nthe legislature cannot  overrule,  set  aside,  cancel  or  declare  void  the
\njudgment  of competent Court or Tribunal or quasi-judicial authorities and the
\nlegislature have only the power to remove the basis of the judgment  or  order
\nof the Court or Tribunal, but cannot render those judgment or order invalid.\n<\/p>\n
        7.  We have heard in detail the arguments of Mr.K.Alagirisamy, learned
\nSenior  Counsel  for Mr.M.Palani and Mr.M.Krishnappan, learned counsel for the
\npetitioners and Mr.K.Muthukumaraswamy,  learned  Additional  Advocate  General
\nassisted  by  Mr.V.Raghupathi, learned Government Pleader for the respondents.
\nAll other learned counsel appearing for the petitioners adopted the  arguments
\nof Mr.K.Alagirisamy, learned Senior Counsel.\n<\/p>\n
        8.   Insofar  as the arguments as to the legislative competency, it is
\nto be seen that the power  of  the  State  to  enact  the  “Impugned  Act”  is
\ntraceable to  Entry  35  of  List  III  of  Schedule  VII.  Article 245 of the
\nConstitution of India relates to the power of the Parliament to make laws  for
\nthe whole or any part of the territory of India and the legislature of a State
\nto make  laws  for  the  whole  or  any part of the State.  Article 246 of the
\nConstitution of India relates to the distribution  of  legislative  powers  as
\nbetween the Union and the State Legislatures with reference to List I, List II
\nand List  III  of  Schedule  VII  of  the  Constitution  of  India.  The union
\nParliament has full and exclusive power to legislate with respect  to  matters
\nin  List  I  apart  from the power to legislate with respect to the matters in
\nList III.  The State Legislature has exclusive power to legislate with respect
\nto matters in List II  and  has  concurrent  power  with  respect  to  matters
\nincluded in  List  III.  Entry 35 of List III relates to the power of both the
\nParliament and the State Legislature to enact laws in respect of  mechanically
\npropelled  vehicles  including  the principles on which taxes on such vehicles
\nare to be levied.  No doubt a law passed  without  legislative  competence  is
\nnullity ab  initio.   It is also well settled that the rule of law constitutes
\nthe core of our Constitution and it is the essence of the rule of law that the
\nexercise of power of the State, whether it be the legislature or the executive
\nor any other authority,  should  be  within  the  constitutional  limitations.
\nBased  on  the above principles, the challenge to the “Impugned Act” as to the
\nlegislative competency of the State Legislature should be tested.  As a follow
\nup of the judgment of the Apex Court in Pandiyan Roadways Corporation’s  case,
\nlarge  number  of permits of private operators amounting to approximately 4000
\nin number were rendered invalid.  Though the Government  made  an  attempt  to
\nbring in a legislation by introducing L.A.Bill No.42 of 1987 with an object to
\ngrant permits to small operators to ply their stage carriage on any portion of
\nthe  area  or  route covered by the draft Schemes or the approved Schemes, the
\nsaid bill was not published though it was assented by the President.   In  the
\nmeantime,  Motor  Vehicles  Act, 1988 (Act 59 of 1988) came into force and the
\nTamil Nadu Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Repeal  Act,  1991  was  passed
\nrepealing L.A.Bill  No.42  of 1987.  While the repealing Act was challenged by
\nthe operators who were granted permits overlapping the notified routes through
\nthe Federation of Operators before  the  Apex  Court,  the  State  Legislature
\nenacted  the  Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Act, 1992 (Act 41
\nof 1992).  Section 6 of the said Act  relating  to  renewal  or  variation  of
\npermits came  into  force from 1.7.90.  The said section enabled the Transport
\nAuthorities to vary the condition of permits even on  routes  covered  by  the
\napproved Scheme.   By virtue of Section 10 of the Act, all permits, renewal or
\ntransfer  of  such  permits  or  any  variation,  modification,  extension  or
\ncurtailment of the route or routes specified in a stage carriage permit during
\nthe period commencing on 4.6.76 and ending with the date of publication of the
\nAct were  validated.    The Apex Court in Thilagavathi’s case by upholding the
\nprovisions of the Act held that no person is entitled to  claim  permit  after
\n30.6.90  as  the  cut-off  date  fixed  in  the  enactment  is  reasonable and
\njustifiable, as the Act came into force on 1.7.90 and all those permits issued
\nprior to the said enactment were validated.   Thus  the  power  of  the  State
\nLegislature  to  enact  the  laws regulating the grant of permits, variations,
\netc., even on notified routes was upheld by the Apex Court.  While  the  State
\nLegislature  has  such  a power, it must necessarily be held that the power to
\nenact law for granting variation shall also include the power  to  cancel  the
\nvariations already  granted.  In our considered view, the impugned legislation
\ndoes not  lack  any  legislative  competency.    Accordingly,  we  reject  the
\ncontentions as to legislative competency of the State Legislature to enact the
\nimpugned legislation.\n<\/p>\n
        9.   Further question still remains for consideration is as to how far
\nthe “Impugned Act” would affect the  variations  granted  to  the  petitioners
\npursuant to Act 41 of 1992.  Before any discussion on the above issue is made,
\nit   would   be   also   relevant   to   consider   the  submissions  made  by
\nMr.K.Alagirisamy, learned senior counsel for the  petitioners  in  challenging
\nthe  “Impugned  Act” on the ground that the State Legislature cannot overrule,
\nset aside, cancel or declare  void  the  judgment  of  a  competent  Court  or
\nTribunal or quasi-judicial authorities.  The above question is not res integra
\nas  it  has  come  up for consideration before the Apex Court on more than one
\noccasion.  In the judgment in 1969 (2) SCC 283) the Apex Court has  held  that
\nthe legislature cannot abrogate the power of Courts to nullify a decree, order
\nor judgment.  Recently, the Apex Court in the judgment in “GOVT.  OF A.P.  AND
\nOTHERS v.   G.V.K.  GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL<\/a> (2000 (8) SCC 370)”, has held that it is
\nwell settled that the legislature cannot overrule a judgment by passing a  law
\nto  that effect unless it removes the basis of the legal rights upon which the
\njudgment is based with retrospective effect and provided there is no violation
\nof any constitutional provision in such withdrawal of rights  retrospectively.
\nThe grant  of  permit  is only a quasi judicial function of the authority.  In
\nthe judgment in ” B.RAJAGOPAL NAIDU v.   STATE  TRANSPORT  APPELLATE  TRIBUNAL
\n(AIR<\/a>  1964  SC 1 573)”, the Apex Court while considering the exercise of power
\nby the State Transport Authority or Regional Transport Authority under Section
\n43-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 has held that  the  Tribunal  constituted
\nunder  the Act must be left absolutely free to deal with the matters according
\nto their best of judgment as they discharge  their  quasi  judicial  function.
\nConcepts of  judicial  act  imply  that  the  act  is not wholly judicial.  It
\ndescribes only a duty cast on the executive body or the authority  to  conform
\nto  norms  of  judicial  procedure  in performing some acts in exercise of its
\nexecutive power.  A quasi judicial  function  is  an  administrative  function
\nwhich the law require to be exercised in some respects, as if it were judicial
\nand a quasi judicial decision is therefore an administrative decision which is
\nsubject to some measure of judicial procedure.\n<\/p>\n
        10.   In  view  of  the  fact  that  the  Transport  Authorities  have
\ndischarged only quasi judicial  function  while  granting  variations  to  the
\npetitioners under sub section (2) of Section 6 of Act 41 of 1992, how far such
\nvariations  granted  by  a quasi judicial authority could be taken away by the
\nsubsequent legislation is a further question to be considered.  The answer  to
\nthis  question is the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in “TELUGUNADA
\nWORKCHARGED EMPLOYEES STATE FEDERATION, NALGONDA DISTRICT UNION REP.   BY  ITS
\nPRESIDENT v.   GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, REP.  BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LABOUR
\nAND EMPLOYMENT, NEW DELHI AND OTHERS (1997 (3) ALT 492” rendered by one of  us
\nThe Chief Justice).  That was a case where by a Government Order an award of a
\nTribunal was sought to be annulled.  After elaborately considering the various
\njudgments,  more  precisely  in  paragraphs  11  and 12, the Court has held as
\nfollows:-\n<\/p>\n
“Our Constitution ordained democratic form of Government.  It has setup  three
\ntraditional  instruments  for  administering  the  State  affairs,  i.e.,  (1)
\nLegislature, (2) Executive and (3) Judiciary.  The power of legislature in our
\nConstitution is limited in  three  directions-(i)  power  to  legislate  on  a
\nsubject  traceable  to specific entry, (ii) not to violate Part-III, and (iii)
\nnot also to violate the Constitutional provisions or  injunction  even  if  it
\ndoes not fall  under  Part-III.    In  State  of  Bihar  and  Others v.  Bihar
\nDistillery Ltd., Justice B.P.  Jeevan Reddy, speaking for  the  Supreme  Court
\nheld  “the  Court  must  recognize  the  fundamental  nature and importance of
\nlegislative process and accord due regard and deference to  it,  just  as  the
\nLegislature and the Executive are expected to show due regard and deference to
\nthe judiciary.    It cannot also be forgotten that our Constitution recognizes
\nand gives effect to the concept of equality between the  three  wings  of  the
\nState and  the concept of ‘checks and balances’ inherent in such scheme”.  The
\npurport of  the  said  law  laid  down  by  the  Supreme  Court  is  that  the
\nLegislature,  Executive  and  Judiciary  should  act  within  their bounds and
\nlimitations and that one wing should not encroach upon the powers  of  another
\nand  that  so long as the Legislature and Executive act within their power and
\ncompetence, the Judiciary should not interfere in their acts or actions.\n<\/p>\n
        Our Constitution vests judicial powers in the Courts and Tribunals and
\nnot in the Executive.  Independent judiciary is the  essence  of  Constitution
\nand that  is  clear  from  Article  50 and Chapter VI of Part VI thereof.  The
\nabove are basic concepts  of  democracy  and  are,  thus,  basic  features  of
\nConstitution.   The Rule of Law envisages that administrative decisions should
\nbe subject to effective system of review by the  Courts.    The  rule  of  law
\nsecures  individual  rights  through  the  medium  of  an  impartial  judicial
\nauthority.  Judiciary is one of the pillars of free society erected by rule of
\nlaw designed to protect the  individual  from  exercise  of  arbitrary  power.
\nAccordingly,  the Courts of law are invested with essential attributes of this
\nbasic feature.  The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Chandramohan v.
\nState of U.P., after emphasizing the important functions of  the  High  Court,
\nhas held:\n<\/p>\n
“????But  the  makers  of  the  Constitution  also  realized  that  “it is the
\nSubordinate Judiciary in India who are brought most closely into contact  with
\nthe  people,  and it is no less important, perhaps indeed even more important,
\nthat their independence should be  placed  beyond  question  in  the  case  of
\nsuperior  Judges.” Presumably to secure the independence of the judiciary from
\nexecutive, the Constitution introduced a group of Articles in  Chapter  VI  of
\nPart VI  under  the  heading  ”  Subordinate  Courts”.    But, at the time the
\nConstitution was made, in most of the States, the  magistracy  was  under  the
\ndirect control  of  the  executive.    Indeed,  it is common knowledge that in
\npre-independence India there was a strong agitation that the judiciary  should
\nbe  separated  from  the  executive  and that the agitation was based upon the
\nassumption that unless they were separated, the independence of the  judiciary
\nat the  lower  levels  would  be  a  mockery.  So, Article 50 of the Directive
\nPrinciples of State Policy states that the State shall take steps to  separate
\nthe judiciary from the executive in the public services of the States.  Simply
\nstated, it means that there shall be a separate judicial service free from the
\nexecutive control.”\n<\/p>\n
This  was  reiterated  by  the Supreme Court in the famous case of Kesavananda
\nBharathi v.  State of Kerala that one of the basic structures of  Constitution
\nis  separation  of  powers  between  the  Legislature,  the  Executive and the
\nJudiciary and the same view was further reiterated by  the  Supreme  Court  in
\nUnion of  India V.  Sankalchand stating that Article 50 of Indian Constitution
\nis the conscience of the Constitution and intends  immunisation  of  judiciary
\nfrom any  form  of  executive  control or interference.  Decisions need not be
\nmultiplied and suffice it to say  that  our  Constitutional  Scheme  does  not
\npermit  any  encroachment  on the part of the executive over the judiciary and
\nthat the same is the basic feature of the Constitution and that in  fact,  the
\nrule  of  law  which  is  the  basic  structure of Constitution envisages that
\nadministrative decisions should be subject to effective system  of  review  by
\nthe Courts.”\n<\/p>\n
        11.   It  is  not  in  dispute  that  all the petitioners were granted
\nvariations by the Transport Authorities  exercising  quasi  judicial  function
\nmore  particularly,  on the strength of sub section (2) of Section 6 of Act 41
\nof 1992.  Such orders  as  to  grant  of  variations  cannot  be  annulled  or
\ncancelled  by  the impugned legislation, as it would amount to encroachment of
\nquasi judicial functions of the authorities and consequently would  take  away
\nthe  right  conferred  on  any  orders  by  such  Tribunal  or  quasi judicial
\nfunctionaries retrospectively.  In this context, it would be useful  to  refer
\nto the  judgment of the Apex Court in “M\/S RAMAN AND RAMAN LTD., v.  THE STATE
\nOF MADRAS AND OTHERS (AIR<\/a> 1959 SC 694)”, wherein the Apex Court has held  that
\nthe  rights  conferred  on  the operators cannot be taken away retrospectively
\nexcept by making a law specifying retrospective effect and within  permissible
\nlimits.\n<\/p>\n
12.   Act 41 of 1992 was enacted with the object to make special provisions in
\nrespect of permits for stage carriages under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988  and
\nin  relation  to  the  Schemes and Rules notified under Chapter VI of the said
\nAct.  It should be also kept in mind that the said Act was  enacted  following
\nthe judgment  of  the Apex Court in Pandiyan Roadways case.  Chapter VI of the
\nMotor Vehicles Act, 1988 relates  to  special  provisions  relating  to  State
\nTransport Undertakings.    Under Section 99, the State Government is empowered
\nto prepare and publish proposal regarding a Scheme giving particulars  of  the
\nnature  of  services proposed to be rendered, the area or route proposed to be
\ncovered and other relevant particulars respecting thereto.  Under Section 102,
\nthe State Government is empowered to cancel or modify the Scheme so  published
\nunder Section  99 of the Act.  Section 104 of the Act is more relevant for the
\ndisposal of these writ petitions.  It relates to the restriction for grant  of
\npermits  in  respect of a notified area or notified route and the said section
\nreads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
“Where a scheme has been published under sub-section (3) of Section  1  00  in
\nrespect  of any notified area or notified route, the State Transport Authority
\nor the Regional Transport Authority, as the case may be, shall not  grant  any
\npermit except in accordance with the provisions of the scheme:
\nProvided  that  where  no  application for a permit has been made by the State
\ntransport undertaking in respect of any notified area  or  notified  route  in
\npursuance of an approved scheme, the State Transport Authority or the Regional
\nTransport  Authority,  as  the case may be, may grant temporary permits to any
\nperson in respect of such notified area  or  notified  route  subject  to  the
\ncondition  that  such  permit  shall  cease  to be effective on the issue of a
\npermit to the State Transport undertaking in respect of that area or route.”\n<\/p>\n
        13.  From the above, it is  seen  that  the  State  Government  though
\nentitled  to  publish  a  Scheme  notifying  the  area  or route in the public
\ninterest, it has power also to allow permit holders to operate on the notified
\nroute by detailing such permits in the Scheme itself.  That was how  when  the
\nScheme was notified in the year 1976 for the route between Madurai and Kumily,
\nsome of the operators who were operating on the scheme route were permitted to
\noperate as per Annexure II.  While the scheme was tested before the Apex Court
\nin Pandiyan Roadways case, the Apex Court has held that no operator except the
\nnames  found  in  Annexure  II  and  the  State Transport Undertaking could be
\ngranted permit  or  variation  on  the  notified  route.    To  get  over  the
\ndifficulties  experienced  by more than 4000 operators who were necessarily to
\ntake their vehicles off the road, Act 41 of 1992 was  enacted  empowering  the
\nTransport Authorities to grant variations even on notified routes.\n<\/p>\n
14.   Section  3  of  the  Act 41 of 1992 relates to the power of the Regional
\nTransport Authority to grant permit or renew a permit to a small  operator  to
\nply  his  stage  carriage  on  the  entire route or by the draft Scheme or the
\napproved Scheme or on such operation of the route covered by the draft  Scheme
\nor  approved Scheme for a specific period subject to such terms and conditions
\nwhich it may in respect of matters specified in sub section (2) of Section  72
\nof the Motor Vehicles Act or in respect of any other matters as it thinks fit.
\nThe  relevant  section for the disposal of these writ petitions is sub section
\n(2) of Section 6 of the said Act which reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
“Notwithstanding anything contained  in  the  Motor  Vehicles  Act  or  in  an
\napproved  scheme, the Regional Transport Authority may, on an application made
\nby the small operator in accordance with the rules made  in  this  behalf  and
\nsubject  to  such  conditions  as  may be prescribed, vary the conditions of a
\npermit for a stage carriage so as to enable the applicant to  operate  on  the
\nentire route or any portion of the route covered by such approved scheme.”
\nBy virtue of the above provision, the Transport Authority is empowered to vary
\nthe  conditions  of  permit  for stage carriage to enable the permit holder to
\noperate on the entire route or any  portion  of  the  route  covered  by  such
\napproved scheme.    The provision is explicit in terms of the intention of the
\nlegislature  empowering  the  Transport  Authorities  to  grant  variation  of
\nconditions of  permit even on a route covered by draft scheme.  Though such an
\nenactment was made, the provisions could not be given effect to  for  want  of
\nRules  till  the  year  1995  when  the  Tamil  Nadu  Motor  Vehicles (Special
\nProvisions) Rules 1995 was notified on 18.5.95.  Rule 4 of the  Rules  relates
\nto the  variation  of  conditions  of  permit.   Sub rule (4) of the said Rule
\nrelates to the issue in question and the same reads as under:-
\n“The State Transport Authority or the Regional  Transport  Authority,  as  the
\ncase  may  be,  may,  after recording the reasons, by order grant or refuse to
\ngrant the variation sought for in the application and shall furnish a copy  of
\nsuch order to the person who filed the representation:\n<\/p>\n
Provided that in the case of variation, the distance covered by such variation
\nshall not exceed twenty four kilometers:\n<\/p>\n
Provided  further  that such variation shall not have the effect of increasing
\nthe number of stage carriages as originally fixed.”\n<\/p>\n
In terms of sub section (2) of Section 6 read with sub rule (4) of Rule  4  of
\nthe  Rules, the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority,
\nas the case may be, were empowered to grant variations subject to the  maximum
\ndistance of  24 kms.  By an amendment, an explanation to rule 4 was added by a
\nnotification of the Government dated 29.12.95.  By  the  said  enactment,  the
\nfollowing explanation was added.\n<\/p>\n
“For the purpose of the rule, variation shall mean and include:-\n<\/p>\n
(a)increase in the number of trips on the entire route or part thereof\n<\/p>\n
(b)reduction  of  singles  or trips or reduction of singles on portions of the
\nroute\n<\/p>\n
(c)extension of the route\n<\/p>\n
(d)curtailment of the route\n<\/p>\n
(e)variation by keeping the termini and deviating  the  course  of  the  route
\nwhich may involve creation of additional termini\n<\/p>\n
(f)conversion of the town service into mofussil service and vice versa\n<\/p>\n
(g)conversion  of  jeep  and  mini  stage carriage services into regular stage
\ncarriage services\n<\/p>\n
(h)conversion of Metropolitan service into mofussil service; and\n<\/p>\n
(i)conversion of Express Service into mofussil service and vice versa.”\n<\/p>\n
Pursuant to the above, applications that were pending were considered and  the
\npetitioners  were  granted  variations between the period 24.1.96 and 24.5.96.
\nThe petitioners also started operating their vehicles on  the  varied  routes.
\nAt  this  juncture, an amendment was brought into as Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles
\n(Special Provisions) Rules, 1995 and the same was  notified  in  G.O.Ms.No.758
\nHome (Transport  III)  Department  dated 25.5.96.  The said amendment reads as
\nunder:-\n<\/p>\n
“In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1)  of  Section  8,  read
\nwith Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Act, 1992
\n(Tamil  Nadu  Act  41  of  1992),  the Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby makes the
\nfollowing amendments to the Tamil Nadu  Motor  Vehicles  (Special  Provisions)
\nRules 1995:-\n<\/p>\n
In the said Rules, in rule 4,?\n<\/p>\n
(1)  in  sub  rule  (4)  for  the first proviso the following proviso shall be
\nsubstituted, namely:-\n<\/p>\n
“Provided that in  the  case  of  variation,  the  distance  covered  by  such
\nvariation shall not exceed twenty four kilometers.”\n<\/p>\n
(2) the explanation shall be omitted.”\n<\/p>\n
A  plain  reading  of  the amendment would reveal that only the explanation to
\nrule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Rules,  1995  was
\nomitted and the omission is only prospective.\n<\/p>\n
15.  Thereafter,  the  impugned  Act  19  of 1996 was notified on 4.7.96.  The
\nrelevant provisions of Section 6 of the Act reads as under:-
\n“Notwithstanding anything contained in the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Act  1992
\nor  in any other law for the time being in force or in any judgment, decree or
\norder of Court, Tribunal or other authority, any condition of permit of  stage
\ncarriage of a small operator varied by the Regional Transport Authority during
\nthe  period  commencing  on  the 24 th day of January 1996 and ending with the
\n24th day of May 1996, based on the explanation (as it stood prior to the  25th
\nMay  1996)  to  rule  4  of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions)
\nRules 1995, made under  the  provisions  of  the  Tamil  Nadu  Motor  Vehicles
\n(Special  Provisions  Act  1992,  shall  stand cancelled and such permit as it
\nstood prior to the 24th day of January 1996, shall have effect as if  no  such
\nvariation has been made.\n<\/p>\n
Notwithstanding  anything  contained  in  section  3,  the  Regional Transport
\nAuthority may, on an application, if, in any exceptional case, he  is  of  the
\nopinion  that  any  variation  of the conditions of permit of a stage carriage
\nwhich stands cancelled under Section 3, did not result in  undue  hardship  or
\nsuffering  to  the  traveling  public,  he may restore such variation and such
\nvariation shall be deemed to be a variation made  under  sub  section  (2)  of
\nSection 6 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Act, 1992.”\n<\/p>\n
A  plain  reading of Section 3 of the “Impugned Act”, is explicitly clear that
\nthe condition of permit of stage carriage of a small operator  varied  by  the
\nRegional  Transport  Authority  during  the  period  commencing on 24.1.96 and
\nending on 24.5.96 based on the explanation to rule 4 of the Tamil  Nadu  Motor
\nVehicles (Special  Provisions) Rules, 1995 were cancelled.  Question arises as
\nto whether when the substantive provision of sub  section  (2)  of  Section  6
\nentitling  the  Transport  Authorities  to grant variations is not omitted, by
\nmerely deleting the explanation added to sub rule (4) of Rule 4 of  the  Tamil
\nNadu  Motor  Vehicles  (Special  Provisions)  Rules,  1995,  could  the  State
\nLegislature cancel the variations granted.\n<\/p>\n
        16.  Before embarking into a discussion on the scope of the  amendment
\nomitting  explanation  to  rule  4  of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles ( Special
\nProvisions) Rules, 1995, it would be appropriate to refer to the  judgment  of
\nthe  Apex  Court in Thilagavathi’s case as to the scope of Section 6 of Act 41
\nof 1992.  While placing interpretation on various sections of Act 41  of  1992
\nincluding  Section  6,  the  Apex  Court has observed in paragraphs 7 and 8 as
\nfollows:-\n<\/p>\n
“Reverting to the provision of the Act, it is slightly unusual legislation  as
\nit  came  into force in July 1992 yet, except Sections 6 and 7 , the remaining
\nprovisions of the Act are deemed to have come into force in 1976 and ceased to
\noperate after 30.6.1990.  The Act thus seeks to  achieve  dual  objective-one,
\nlegislatively  protecting  those operators who were granted permits after 1976
\nunder misconception by the transport  authorities  that  the  Scheme  excluded
\nother  operators  from  ”  end-to-end”  route only by fictionally enabling the
\ntransport authority to have issued permits notwithstanding  any  provision  in
\nthe Scheme  framed  by  the  Undertaking.  Two, it prohibited grant of any new
\npermit after 30.6.1990 which overlapped whole or part of notified route,  that
\nis, the Legislature while accepting the interpretation placed by this Court on
\nconstruction  of  Scheme prepared under Section 68-C legislatively removed the
\nhurdle in grant of permits on notified route in past, validated the  grant  so
\nmade but prohibited any grant in future.  Sections 3, 4, 5 and 10 are directed
\ntowards  regularizing  and  validating  the  permits  granted between 1976 and
\n30.6.1990, whereas Sections 6 and 7 achieve the latter objective.   Section  3
\nis the  main  section.    Its  sub-sections  (1)  and  (2)  empower a Regional
\nTransport Authority to grant, renew or vary conditions of permit  of  a  small
\noperator,  which, according to the explanation to the section, means any stage
\ncarriage operator holding not more than five stage carriage permits, to ply on
\na notified route or part of it notwithstanding anything contained in any draft
\nscheme.  Sub-section (3) of Section 3 provides  that  during  the  period  the
\npermit  referred to under sub-section (1) or (2) was in force the draft scheme
\nshall stand modified to that extent.  Sub-section (4) makes the provisions  of
\nChapter  V  of  the  Act  applicable to grant, renewal or variation of permit.
\nSection 5 provides that Sections 3, 4 and 6 shall have effect  notwithstanding
\nanything  inconsistent  therewith  contained  in  Chapters  V and VI including
\nSection 98 of the Motor Vehicles Act.   Section  10  validates  the  grant  of
\npermit retrospectively.    Section  3  thus  created  power  in  the transport
\nauthority to grant, renew, vary or alter permit from  1976  and  Section  1  0
\nvalidated  such grant notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the new Act.
\nThere was no challenge by the State Transport Undertaking to these  provisions
\nby which the grant of permits in favour of the operators between 1976 and 1990
\nhas been permitted and validated.\n<\/p>\n
        Section 6  like  Section 3 has four sub-sections.  Sub-sections (1) to
\n(3) deal with renewal of  permit  or  modification  of  condition  therein  in
\naccordance  with  same  procedure  as  applied  to  renewal or variation under
\nChapter V of the Act.  But, sub-section (4) debars the authority from  issuing
\nany fresh permit.  It reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
“Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act no new permit shall be granted
\nunder this Act to any person on any route covered by an approved scheme.”
\nThis section  unlike  other  sections comes in operation from 30.6.1990.  Thus
\nfrom 30.6.1990 the Regional Transport Authority is not empowered to grant  any
\nnew permit  to  any operator overlapping whole or part of notified route.  But
\nso far permits, grant of which has  been  validated  by  30.6.1990,  would  be
\nrenewable under  this section even after 3 0.6.1990.  The effect of Section 6,
\ntherefore, is that those operators who were granted permits  between  1976  to
\n30.6.1990  would  be entitled to seek renewal but the authorities would not be
\nentitled to grant fresh permit after that date.  Validity of even sub-sections
\n(1) and (2) was not challenged by the Undertaking.  And sub-section (4) cannot
\nbe challenged by the appellants as it is in keeping with Chapter VI of the new
\nAct.  It is further reinforced by  Section  7  which  abates  all  proceedings
\npending  for grant of permit on a notified route before any authority or court
\nin appeal.”\n<\/p>\n
In view of the authoritative pronouncement of  the  Apex  Court  in  the  said
\njudgment,  the  Regional Transport Authority is not empowered to grant any new
\npermit to any operator overlapping whole  or  part  of  notified  route  after
\n30.6.90.   But, so far permits, grant of which have been validated by 30.6.90,
\nthe same are renewable under Section 6 of the Act.  While interpreting Section
\n6 of the Act, the Apex Court upheld the validity of the same by approving  the
\npower  of  the Regional Transport Authority to grant, renew or vary conditions
\nof permit of small operator namely, any stage carriage  operator  holding  not
\nmore than five stage carriage permits to ply on a notified route or part of it
\nnotwithstanding anything  contained  in draft scheme.  We find no infirmity in
\nthe grant of variations to the  petitioners  pursuant  to  subsection  (2)  of
\nSection 6  of  Act  41  of  1992.    Such  variations granted are sought to be
\ncancelled by the “Impugned Act” solely on the ground that explanation to  rule
\n4  of  the  Tamil  Nadu  Motor  Vehicles  (Special Provisions) Rules, 1995 was
\nomitted.  The said explanation was inserted by a notification, dated 29.12.95.
\nThough some arguments were advanced as to the definition of  “variation  shall
\nmean  and  include”, we do not find any discussion on the same is necessary in
\nview of our finding that the said explanation is sought  to  be  omitted  only
\nprospectively.   Whenever the legislature sought to omit any provisions of law
\nincluding an explanation, unless  it  is  explicitly  made  clear  as  to  the
\nomission  is made retrospectively, it must be held that such omission shall be
\ndeemed to be prospective only.  Hence, in our considered view, the  variations
\nalready granted pursuant to sub-section (2) of Section 6 read with explanation
\nto  rule  4  of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Rules, 1995
\nare not affected by mere omission of explanation  from  the  rules.    Article
\n19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India protects the right of the petitioners to
\ncarry on  any occupation, trade or business.  Such right could be regulated by
\nthe State.  The right to ply the vehicles by the petitioners is by  virtue  of
\nthe  permits  granted  earlier  and  the consequent variations granted to them
\npursuant to Act 41 of 1992.  Such rights cannot  be  infringed  by  the  State
\nexcept by  law  approved by the Cou rts.  In this context, it is to be seen as
\nto whether the deprival of the petitioners to operate on varied  routes  could
\nbe justifiable  by  the  “Impugned  Act”.    A  reading  of paragraph 3 of the
\n“Impugned Act” is beyond doubt that the variations granted to the  petitioners
\nprior  to  24.5.96 were cancelled only on the ground that they were granted by
\nvirtue of explanation to rule 4 and such explanation was omitted  on  25.5.96.
\nThe basis for cancellation of variation of permits, in our considered view, is
\nunjustifiable.    The  right  conferred  on  the  operators  pursuant  to  the
\nvariations granted on the basis of the  explanation  cannot  be  infringed  by
\nomission of  the  explanation  more particularly, prospectively.  Only placing
\nreliance on the omission of explanation by the “Impugned Act”, the  variations
\ngranted  to  the  petitioners  prior  to  24.5.96  are sought to be cancelled.
\nHence, the “Impugned Act” is liable to be declared as unconstitutional,  ultra
\nvires and void.\n<\/p>\n
        17.  In view of the above discussions, we declare the Tamil Nadu Motor
\nVehicles  (Special  Provisions)  (Cancellation  of  variation of conditions of
\npermit) Act, 1996 is unconstitutional, ultra vires and  void.    Consequently,
\nthere  will  be  a  direction to the Regional Transport Authority concerned to
\npermit each of the petitioners to operate their stage carriage services on the
\nrespective varied routes as per the earlier orders passed pursuant to  Act  41
\nof 1992.    Accordingly,  all  the  writ  petitions are allowed and the relief
\nprayed in each of the writ petition is granted.  No costs.  Consequently,  all
\nthe connected W.P.M.Ps.  are closed.\n<\/p>\n
Index:  Yes
\nInternet:  Yes<\/p>\n
ss<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.  The Secretary to
\nGovernment of Tamil Nadu
\nHome Department
\nFort St.  George
\nChennai-9<\/p>\n
2.  Regional Transport Authority
\nVillupuram District
\nVillupuram<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court R.Srinivasan vs State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By on 7 August, 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 07\/08\/2003 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.B.SUBHASHAN REDDY, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.MURUGESAN W.P.No.23854 of 2001 and W.P.Nos. 23880, 23881, 24238, 24239, 24863, 24865, 24875, 24901 to 24909, 24925 to 24935, […]<\/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-27716","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nR.Srinivasan vs State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By on 7 August, 2003 - 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\/r-srinivasan-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-on-7-august-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"R.Srinivasan vs State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By on 7 August, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-srinivasan-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-on-7-august-2003\" \/>\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=\"2003-08-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-03-29T15:53:12+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=\"35 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-srinivasan-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-on-7-august-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-srinivasan-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-on-7-august-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"R.Srinivasan vs State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By on 7 August, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-08-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-29T15:53:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-srinivasan-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-on-7-august-2003\"},\"wordCount\":6682,\"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\\\/r-srinivasan-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-on-7-august-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-srinivasan-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-on-7-august-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-srinivasan-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-on-7-august-2003\",\"name\":\"R.Srinivasan vs State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By on 7 August, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-08-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-29T15:53:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-srinivasan-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-on-7-august-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-srinivasan-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-on-7-august-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-srinivasan-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-on-7-august-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"R.Srinivasan vs State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By on 7 August, 2003\"}]},{\"@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":"R.Srinivasan vs State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By on 7 August, 2003 - 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\/r-srinivasan-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-on-7-august-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"R.Srinivasan vs State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By on 7 August, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-srinivasan-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-on-7-august-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-08-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-03-29T15:53:12+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":"35 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-srinivasan-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-on-7-august-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-srinivasan-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-on-7-august-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"R.Srinivasan vs State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By on 7 August, 2003","datePublished":"2003-08-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-29T15:53:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-srinivasan-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-on-7-august-2003"},"wordCount":6682,"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\/r-srinivasan-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-on-7-august-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-srinivasan-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-on-7-august-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-srinivasan-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-on-7-august-2003","name":"R.Srinivasan vs State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By on 7 August, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-08-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-29T15:53:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-srinivasan-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-on-7-august-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-srinivasan-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-on-7-august-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-srinivasan-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-on-7-august-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"R.Srinivasan vs State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By on 7 August, 2003"}]},{"@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\/27716","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=27716"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27716\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=27716"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=27716"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=27716"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}