9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (9) TMI 884X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r autos developed by scooters India limited as a passenger carrier (Public Service Vehicle). Thereafter, the Government in G.O.Ms.No.1492 Home Department Dated 30.10.1998 permitted the registration of 100 five seater autos in Chennai City on an experimental basis. The fare structure of Re.1/- per head per K.M., was also notified by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.1493 Home Department dated 30.10.1998. The proposal submitted by the Transport Commissioner in his letter dated 14.10.2000 to permit five seater autos in other parts of the State was examined by the State Government. Accordingly, G.O.Ms.No.277 Home (Transport Department VI) dated 22.03.2001 was issued, permitting five seater autos not exceeding 50 in number in each district headquarters of the State. By a subsequent order in G.O.Ms.No.278 Home ( Transport VI) Department dated 22.03.2001, the Government also permitted five seater vehicles developed by Bajaj India Limited to be registered as autos to be permitted to ply in Chennai city and other places in the State on the same pattern permitted in G.O.Ms.No.277 Home Department dated 22.03.2001. These orders were issued in exercise of powers under Section 67 of the Motor Vehicles ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssion was granted by him for Registration of Minider Autorickshaw with a seating capacity of 5+1 for private use under Light Motor Vehicles Category in his office circular No.47/98 dated 05.05.1998. He has also stated that Trl.Bajaj Tempo Limited has reported the traveling public prefer Bajaj Tempo Minider Vehicle as these vehicle gives better riding comfort with adequate space for luggage. The Transport Commissioner has further stated that he has already addressed the Government to relax ceiling on Five seats New Auto rickshaw permits in Chennai city and permission for introducing the same in other places in Tamil Nadu and therefore requested the Government to consider the request of Tvl.Bajaj Tempo limited favourably for issue of Auto permit to their vehicle Tempo Minider (5+1 seater) in Chennai city and other places in Tamil Nadu. The Government in their order read third above, allowed additional permits to Chennai City and new permits for district head quarters as recommended by Transport Commissioner. 2. The Government after careful consideration accept the recommendation of the Transport Commissioner, Chennai and direct that the vehicle Tempo Minider (5+1) manufactured by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0/- per annum and ₹ 3500/- for five years. The Regional Transport Officers are requested to send acknowledgement to the respective zonal officers and the Zonal officers may send their acknowledgements to this office." 4. Based upon the Government Orders and the instructions of the Transport Commissioner, the petitioners in W.P.Nos.10263, 11143 to 11150, 11173 to 11176 of 2002 applied on different dates to the Secretary to the Regional Transport Authority, Virudhunagar for the grant of Minider auto rickshaw permits under Sections 66, 69, 73 and 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") read with Rule 170 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") so as enable them to ply their vehicles within 30 K.M., radius in and around Rajapalayam Bus stand. The petitioners were issued with orders of grant dated 21/22.01.2002. The petitioners were directed to produce the minider autorickshaw with valid registration certificate, insurance certificate and tax receipt paid within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. There is no dispute that the petitioners complied w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or which permits were granted for the places except the headquarters viz., Virudhunagar. Hence, the petitioners filed petitions to vacate the interim stay granted by this Court on 13.06.2002. 7. The appellant in W.A.No.1752 of 2002 also filed W.P.No.24529 of 2 002, by impleading as many as 20 permit holders, challenging G.O.Ms. No.277, 278 Home (Transport VI) Department dated 22.03.2001 and for a consequential direction to the respondents to cancel the permits issued to 20 permit holders to ply the five seater autorickshaws in Rajapalayam, Srivilliputhur and Sivakasi. 8. One P.Malar, a permit holder of three seater autorickshaw also filed W.P.No.31280 of 2002, seeking for writ of mandamus, directing the transport authorities to cancel the permits to respondents 4 to 24 viz., the permit holders. Since these two writ petitions also related to the same issue, they were also taken up for hearing and disposal along with the other writ petitions and writ appeals. 9. Mrs.Radha Gopalan, learned counsel appearing for Respondent 1 in W.A.Nos.1752, 1883 and 1884 of 2002 and for petitioners in W.P.Nos.10 263, 11143 to 11146, 11173 to 11176 of 2002 submitted that the appellants in W.A.Nos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Pleader has submitted that the Government is empowered to issue directions to the Transport Authorities for grant under Section 67 of "the Act". The grants issued in favour of the applicants to ply their vehicles outside the headquarters are also sustainable when the areas are covered by within 30 K.M. radius from the headquarters. Learned Government Pleader further submitted that when the transport authorities by mistake issued grants to ply the vehicles in the places outside the district headquarters as directed by the Government, they are entitled to rectify the mistake by amending the area of operation in conformity with the directions of the Court. 14. In view of the above rival submissions, the following points arise for our consideration: (1) Whether the appellants in W.A.Nos.1752, 1883 and 1884 of 2002 and the petitioners in W.P.Nos.24529 and 31280 of 2002 are persons aggrieved and could maintain the writ appeals and the writ petitions ? (2) Whether the transport authorities are empowered to issue grant to ply the five seater autos other than the places directed in G.O.Ms. Nos.277 Home (Transport VI) Department dated 22.03.2001 ? (3 If so, whether suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed policy". There may be a case granting a stage carriage permit contrary to the terms of a scheme of total exclusion of private operators. Similarly, there may be an illegal exercise of power in granting permits under the liberalised policy. Therefore, it is not possible to hold that under any circumstances, the stage carriage permit granted to an applicant cannot at all be challenged and the jurisdiction under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution cannot be exercised against the decision of the Regional Transport Authority granting a stage carriage permit, at the instance of a third party. It is relevant to notice that safety of the public is one of the primary objects of the Motor Vehicles Act. Suppose, on a particular route, several permits are granted, making it impossible to operate the vehicles on that route, the public safety will be in danger. Therefore, it cannot be said that under any circumstances, the grant of stage carriage permit cannot be challenged and the jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be exercised. It is one thing to say that the writ petition is not maintainable and it is quite another thing to say as to whether in a given case, jurisdiction und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y a monopoly of operation of the route. It is up to the Authority to consider whether the application filed by a private operator for permit on that route or another route overlapping that route should be issued or not. In case the private operator who is operating on the nationalized route has a grievance that the number of private operators specified in the notified Scheme is being exceeded then the permit issued to the operator / operators in excess of the specified limit, may be challenged before the statutory fora in accordance with the provisions of the Act. From the reading of the above findings of the Apex Court and the Division Bench, it is clear that there is no absolute bar for an existing operator to maintain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in challenging the grant on the ground of either the violation of the provisions of the Act or Rules or when the very grant themselves are contrary to the directions issued by the Government. 17. Coming to the facts of the present cases, the appellants in all the three writ appeals and the petitioners in W.P.Nos.24529 and 31280 of 2002 have challenged the grants not only on the ground that they are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... directions so issued are binding on the transport officers. As per the directions of the Government, the Regional Transport Authority is empowered to issue grant for five seater autos only in the district headquarters. Equally, it is not disputed that Rajapalayam is not the district headquarter of Virudhunagar District. Though applications were filed for the grant of permits in the prescribed form under the provisions of "the Act", a reading of the application, a copy of which has been filed in the typed set of papers, shows that the applications have been filed only in terms of the Government Orders. In column IV of the application, the area / route is mentioned as "within 30 K.M.radius from Rajapalayam and Srivilliputhur and Sivakasi bus stand". Equally, the proceedings of the Secretary to the Regional Transport Authority in issuing grants refers to the Government Orders made in G.O.Ms.No.277 Home ( Transport IV) Department dated 22.03.2001. The subsequent proceedings dated 0 5.03.2002, modifying the area of operation which have been impugned by the grantees in W.P.Nos.10263, 11143 to 11150, 11173 to 11176 of 20 02 also refer to G.O.Ms.No.277, 278 Home (Trans ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ders. The said Government Orders in regard to the fare structure are within the ambit of the provisions of Section 67 of "the Act". Moreover, what is contemplated is collection of Re.1/- as fare per K.M., and not the fare for each and every stage as contended by the learned counsel. Accordingly, the fare structure of Re.1/- per K.M., cannot be considered in any way either outside the purview of Section 67 of "the Act" or arbitrary. Hence, we do not find any merit in challenge to the Government Orders in this regard. Coming to G.O.Ms.No.278 Home (Transport VI) Department dated 22.03.2001, it only refers to the permission to ply Tempo Minider (5+1) manufactured by Tvl.Bajaj Tempo Ltd.,Chennai to ply as an Auto in Chennai City and other places in Tamil Nadu on the same pattern as VIKRAM five seater autos. No arguments were advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the existing operators, questioning the said Government Order. That apart, we do find that the said Government Order is in accordance with the powers conferred on the State Government under Section 67 of "the Act". 21. In view of our findings that the Original grants in favour of responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
