2002 (9) TMI 884 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Locus standi of the appellants and petitioners to challenge the permits.
2. Authority of transport authorities to issue permits for five-seater autos beyond district headquarters.
3. Validity of permits under the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Locus Standi of the Appellants and Petitioners:
The appellants in W.A.Nos.1752, 1883, and 1884 of 2002 and the petitioners in W.P.Nos.24529 and 31280 of 2002 argued that they were aggrieved parties as existing operators and thus had the locus to challenge the permits. The court referenced the Supreme Court judgments in MITHILESH GARG ETC. vs. UNION OF INDIA (A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 443) and ABDUL HAI KHAN vs. SUBAL CHANDRA CHOSE (2002(4) S.C.C. 519), which established that existing operators could challenge permits if they violated statutory provisions or government orders. The court concluded that the appellants and petitioners had the locus to maintain the writ appeals and petitions as the grants were issued contrary to the government orders.

2. Authority of Transport Authorities to Issue Permits Beyond District Headquarters:
The court examined G.O.Ms.No.277 and 278 Home (Transport VI) Department dated 22.03.2001, which allowed the issuance of permits for five-seater autos in district headquarters only. The contention that permits could cover a radius of 30 K.M. from the district headquarters was rejected, as the government order clearly restricted permits to district headquarters. The court found that the grants issued to operate outside the district headquarters were beyond the scope of the government orders and thus invalid.

3. Validity of Permits under the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules:
The petitioners in W.P.Nos.10263, 11143 to 11150, 11173 to 11176 of 2002 applied for permits under Sections 66, 69, 73, and 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, read with Rule 170 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. The court noted that the applications and grants referenced the government orders, indicating that the permits were considered under these orders rather than the Act and Rules. Consequently, the grants issued to operate outside the district headquarters were invalid as they did not comply with the government orders.

Conclusion:
The court allowed W.A.Nos.1752, 1883, and 1884 of 2002, setting aside the orders in W.P.Nos.13925 and 13930 of 2002. W.P.Nos.24529 and 31280 of 2002 were allowed to the extent that the grants issued to respondents 4, 5, and 6 to operate outside the district headquarters were invalid. Consequently, W.P.Nos.10263, 11143 to 11150, 11173 to 11176 of 2002 were dismissed as no further orders were required. The court emphasized that the government orders under Section 67 of the Motor Vehicles Act were binding and that permits issued contrary to these orders could not be sustained.