1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 25.02.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE CHITRA VENKATARAMAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.SUDANTHIRAM W.A. (MD) No.258 of 2011 K.Velusamy ..Petitioner/Appellant versus 1. The Regional Transport Authority Tirunelveli @ Tenkasi. 2. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal Chennai-600 104. 3. P.Muthalraj 4. The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Limited Virudhunagar. .. Respondents/Respondents ----- PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 22.01.2011 made in W.P.(MD) No.10800 of 2009. W.P.No.10800 of 2009:- This Writ Petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to M.V.RP.No.62 of 2005, dated 11.09.2009 on the file of the Second respondent and to quash the same. ----- For appellant : Mr.C.R.Krishnamoorthy For respondents-1 and 4 : Mr.R.Janakiramulu Special Government Pleader https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHITRA VENKATARAMAN,J.) This writ appeal is against the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 22.01.2011 in W.P.(MD) No.10800 of 2009, wherein, on a writ petition filed by the appellant herein, this Court rejected the prayer, thereby confirmed the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, which remanded the matter back to the Regional Transport Authority for its consideration to make an inspection as regards the route granted to the fourth respondent-Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, the third respondent as well as to the writ appellant herein. 2. The contention of the appellant herein is that the permit granted to him was of the year 2005, whereas, in respect of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, the same was of the year 2003. Even while granting the permit for the year 2005 to the appellant, the Regional Transport Authority had considered the route that is to be given to the petitioner for operating the mini bus and that there is no overlapping of the same for the route given to the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation. In the circumstances, the question of remand, as such, does not arise. Learned single Judge considered the said contention, applied the decision of the Apex Court reported in (1996) 8 SCC 314 (C.Kasturi Vs. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority) and rejected the same. Hence this writ appeal. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that along with the report of the motor vehicles inspector, the sketch and the details of the served portion distances are available in records, which shows less than 4 kilometres. Consequently, the permit granted to the petitioner is legally maintainable. Having regard to the served portion and the total distance of the road being within the norms prescribed by the Government Order, the question of remand as ordered by the Tribunal does not arise. He further pointed out that the judgment referred by the learned single Judge has no relevance to the case on hand. Consequently, he prays for setting aside of the said order. He further contended that even if the remand is to be considered, the possibility of the authority overlooking the route that existed as on the date of the grant of permit in 2005 is bound to be there, causing serious prejudice to the appellant. 4. We do not find any substantive ground for this Court to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge. A perusal of the order of the Tribunal shows that the appellant herein applied for grant of two mini bus permits and the same was granted by the Regional Transport Authority. The Transport Corporation filed its objections to the grant of mini bus permit. The revision petitioner who is the third respondent in the writ appeal, challenged the grant of the permit to the writ appellant herein. On going through the records submitted by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 parties, the Tribunal felt that the matter had to be remitted back to the authority to have a joint inspection along with the writ appellant, the Transport Corporation as well as the third respondent herein to curtail the portion, if necessary, to bring the served sector within the norms as prescribed by the Government Order. Based on the inspection, the Regional Transport Authority, to pass orders thereon. Thus the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the Regional Transport Authority to have a joint inspection and thereafter pass orders within three months. Learned Single Judge, on considering the contention that the order had been passed in favour of the writ appellant without taking into account the objections raised by the operators in the served sector, upheld the order of the Tribunal that the joint inspection would not cause any prejudice to the appellant herein; on the other hand, the inspection showed that the writ appellant was operating within 4 kilometres of the served sector and he could always retain his permit. Thus holding, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition. 5. The Tribunal considered the contention of the appellant herein that the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation had not participated in the enquiry conducted and hence, no fault could be made out as against the appellant herein. Yet, the Tribunal thought it fit to order a joint inspection and consider the objections and then pass an order. In so ordering, we do not we do not find any serious prejudice that the appellant would suffer on account of the order of the learned single Judge confirming the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. In the circumstances, the writ appeal stands dismissed with a direction to the Regional Transport Authority to consider the remand as regards the route position that existed as on the date of grant of permit to the appellant herein, grant opportunity to the parties and pass orders in accordance with law. No costs. Connected M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2011 also stands dismissed. Sd/- Deputy Registrar(LA) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1. The Regional Transport Authority, Tirunelveli at Tenkasi. 2. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Chennai-600 104. 3. The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Limited, Virudhunagar. +One Cc to M/s.N.S.Ramakrishna Dass , Advocate, SR.No.10272 +One CC to The Special Government Pleader, SR.No.10415 ksv SMA/6c – 18.3.2011 W.A.(MD) No.258 of 2011 Dated: 25.02.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/