IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 22.02.2008 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR Writ Petition No.14516 of 2003 - - - V.Rajendran .. Petitioner v 1. The Regional Transport Authority Salem. 2. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, High Court Building Chennai.104. .. Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the first respondent relating to R.No/A4/14331/01 dated 11.4.2003 and quash the same and further direct the first respondent to grant the permit enabling the petitioner to produce valid records and get the Mini bus permit for the route "Malankadu to Shastri Nagar Annadhanapatti Road" issued in favour of petitioner as directed by the second respondent in Appeal No.1338 of 2001 dated 8.4.2002 and for further orders. For petitioner : Mr. N.Gopalakrishnan For respondents : Mr.A.Srumugham AGP O R D E R This writ petition is filed for issuance of a writ of certiorarified Manamus, to quash the order of the first respondent dated 11.4.2003 and further direct the first respondent to grant permit to enable the petitioner to produce valid records and get the Mini bus permit for the route "Malankadu to Shastri Nagar Annadhanapatti Road" issued in favour of petitioner as directed by the second respondent in Appeal No.1338 of 2001 dated 8.4.2002 and for further orders. 2. The case of the petitioner is as follows: The petitioner made an application for grant of mini bus permit on 24.08.2000 for the route Malakadu to Annathanapatti. Since there was no response, the petitioner filed W.P.No.16663 of 2001 and this Court, by order dated 13.09.2001, directed the respondent therein to consider and dispose of the application of the petitioner. Pursuant to the order of this Court, the first respondent passed an order dated 5.12.2001, rejecting his application, on the ground that the overlapping on the served sector is for 4.170 kms. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent in Appeal No.1338 of 2001. The overlapping distance on the served sector was restricted between Corporation limit to Shastri Nagar, less than 4 kms.,that is for 3.95 kms. The second respondent directed the Regional Transport Authority, first respondent to grant permit for the route 'Malankadu to Shastri Nagar (Annadhanapatti Road)' and the petitioner was directed to produce valid records, within three months, provided that the petitioner's claim falls within the limit of 250 permits, allotted to Salem District. Since the orders of the Tribunal were not implemented, the petitioner moved this Court in WP.No.7695 of 2003 for a direction to the respondent therein, to issue mini bus permit and by order dated 11.03.2002, this Court directed the first respondent to implement the order of the Tribunal within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order, subject to the availability of the vacancies. Instead of passing an order sanctioning the permit, the first respondent has rejected the application of the petitioner for the grant of a mini bus permit for the route 'Malanakadu to Shastri Nagar (Annadhanapatty Road), on the ground that the served sector exists 5.50kms. The said order is challenged in the present writ petition. 3. Mr.N.Gopalakrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Chenani had directed the Permit Issuing Authority to grant permission for the modified route, the first respondent has exceeded in his jurisdiction in reconsidering the matter afresh and, therefore, the findings that the overlapping distance of the served sector exceeds 4 kms. is erroneous and illegal. 4. He further submitted that when the orders of the Tribunal were not implemented in time, this Court has directed the Permit Issuing Authority to implement the orders, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order made by the petitioner and in the absence of any writ petition filed by any aggrieved person, the second respondent, being a subordinate is bound by the orders of the Tribunal and, therefore, re-survey of the routes conducted by the first respondent, amounts to exceeding the jurisdiction and disobeying the orders of the second respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that as per the orders of the Tribunal, if there were existing vacancies in Salem District, the Permit Issuing authority ought to have granted the permit, on production of the documents pertaining to the vehicles. 5. Per contra, learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that pursuant to the orders of the Tribunal, the road from Malanakadu to Shastri Nagar, was inspected and found that Shastri Nagar was situated nearby Annathanapatty Pirivu, which is a vast area. The terminal point of Shastri Nagar was not suitable for curtailment. On examination of the inspection report and the relevant sketch submitted by the Motor Vehicles Inspector, Salem the Permission Issuing Authority has observed that the terminal point was restricted as Shastri Nagar Pirivu on Annadhanapatty Road and that the entire portion of the said served sector on the proposed road Malanakadu Pirivu on Annadhanapatti road exceeded 5kms. According to him, since the overlapping sector has exceeded by one kilo meter, there is no error in rejecting the request of the petitioner for sanction of permit, which is in accordance with the guidelines in G.O.Ms.No.1530 dated 17.11.99. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Referring to the impugned order of the Regional Transport Authority, Salem, learned Additional Government Pleader further submitted that the modified request of the petitioner dated 21.8.2002, requesting that a portion of the route from Periyur-Uthamasolapuram to Neikkarapatty for a distance of 1.5 kms.be curtailed and a fresh mini stage permit may be granted , in respect of route mentioned in the modified request was not covered by the orders of the Tribunal and therefore, the rejection order is valid in law. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Initially, the petitioner has applied for grant of mini bus to ply on the route Malankadu to Annadhanapatti (via)Santhanakarakadu-Puthur,Neickkarapatty,Uthamasolapuram, Elanthoppu, Kondalampatty Bus stop, Bye-pass and Nethimedu, for a period of five years from the date of issue. The route in question was inspected by the field staff and as per route length survey conducted by the competent authorities, the overlapping sector of the route was 4.170kms. and, therefore, by order dated 05.12.2001, the first respondent rejected the application for grant of mini bus permit. Aggrieved by the said rejection order, the petitioner has preferred statutory appeal before the second respondent in Appeal No.1338 of 2001. 8. Perusal of the second respondent's order in Appeal No.1338 of 2001 reveals that the learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner, had requested the appellate authority that the route applied for, may be curtailed upto Sasthri Nagar, so that, the served sector comes within 4 kms., ie., within the permissible limits of G.O.Ms.No.1530 Home (Tr.III) Department dated 17.11.1999. With regard to the plea, the Tribunal took the view that if the distance is curtailed as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the route would be within the prescribed limit and that the public would get the benefit of a mini stage carriage, from Malankkadu to Sastri Nagar. Therefore, the Tribunal, considering the plea of the learned counsel for the appellant and the sketch submitted by the Motor Vehicles Inspector Grade I, Salem, concluded that, if the route applied for by the petitioner is modified, then it would serve the object of the government order. So saying, the Tribunal has allowed the appeal and remitted the matter back to the Regional Transport Authority, Salem to grant sanction of mini bus permit to ply on the modified route. 9.Rule 181 o the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules reads as follows: 181(a) When the applicant is unable to produce the certificate of registration on the date of his application for the permit, for the reason that he is not on that date in possession of a vehicle duly registered or for some other reasons, the Transport Authority or the Tribunal, as the case may be, shall grant him three months time to be reckoned from the date of receipt of the orders passed by them to produce the certificate of registration of the vehicle before the Transport Authority which has to issue the permit in order that particulars of registration mark may be entered in the permit. In cases where the State Transport Authority's order is stayed by the Tribunal and is subsequently vacated, the time for production of the registration certificate should be calculated from the date of receipt of the order of the Tribunal confirming the Transport Authority's order. If, however, the applicant acquired the vehicle and is able to produce the certificate of registration thereof within the time allowed, under this rule, the Transport Authority concerned shall issue the permit in respect of that vehicle." 10. An order passed by the Tribunal under Section 89 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 is final unless it is challenged before the competent forum. It is not in dispute that when the implementation of the orders of the Tribunal by the first respondent was delayed, this Court, by order dated 11.3.2003 in W.P.No.7695 of 2003, has directed the first respondent to implement the direction of the second respondent, Triubnal within three weeks from the date of receipt of the said order,subject to availability of vacancies. The State Transport Appellate Authority in its order dated 8.4.2002 made in Appeal No.1381 of 2001, has not authorised or directed the permit issuing authority to conduct a re-survey of the route length. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the action of the first respondent in conducting a re-survey of the route, amounts to excess of jurisdiction. Even assuming that the proposed route length Malankkadu to Sastri Nagar pirivu exceeded 4 kms., the first respondent ought to have considered the modified request of the petitioner dated 21.8.2002, requesting deletion of certain portion of the route, so that the general public are benefited. All that the authority has to verify is whether the modified request falls within the parameters of the government order, enabling the authority to grant permit. 11. A perusal of the impugned order dated 11.04.2003 of the first respondent reveals that if a portion of the route from Periyur-Uthamasolapuram to Neikkarapatty is curtailed, the proposed length of the route would be 8.60kms. Re-tracing 0.4kms.from Chinnaputhur Thanneer Thotti to Naikkarapatti Four Road with an overlapping sector 4.00 kms.and unserved sector of 4.6 kms as detailed in the impugned order. 12.When the permit issuing authority has found that the request of the petitioner is within the parameters of the G.O.Ms.No.1530 Home (Tr.III) Department dated 17.11.1999, he should have granted permit instead of rejecting the same on the ground that the request was not covered by the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Chennai. After all,the permit if any, granted would serve the general public and therefore it should have been main concern of the authority while granting the permit. 13. A reading of the impugned order further shows that the first respondent is bent upon rejecting the application of the petitioner on one way or the other. 14. For the above said reasons, the impugned order is set aside. Considering the length of litigation from the year 2002, a direction is issued to the first respondent to issue sanction of permit order, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the said order, the petitioner shall produce the necessary documents as required under Section 181(v) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, within a period of three months therefrom. On production of such material documents by the petitioner, the first respondent is further directed to issue the permit for the route as per the modified route requested by the petitioner in his application dated 21.8.2002, within a period of four weeks thereafter. 15. With the above observation, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. 22.02.2008 Index : Yes kvsg To 1. The Regional Transport Authority, Salem. 2. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, High Court Building,Chennai.104. S.MANIKUMAR, J. kvsg W.P.No.14516 of 2003 22.02.2008