IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :: 01-12-2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.DHANAPALAN WRIT APPEAL Nos.1954 TO 1961 OF 2002 AND 2771 TO 2774 OF 2003 W.A.No.1954 OF 2002 : R.Mageswari ... Appellant/ Ist Respondent in W.P.14654/93 -vs- 1.A.Sengoda Goundar 2.The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, City Civil Court Buildings, Chennai – 600 104. 3.The Regional Transport Authority, Salem at Namakkal. ... Respondents/ Petitioner/ Respondent 2 and 3 in W.P.14654/93 M. Jayanthi ... Ist Respondent in W.P.14652/93/ Appellant in W.A.1955/02 K.S. Krishnaveni ... Ist Respondent in W.P.14653/93/ Appellant in W.A.1956/02 M. Umamageshwari ... 3rd Respondent in W.P.14651/93/ Appellant in W.A.1957/02 K.S. Krishnaveni ... Ist Respondent in W.P.13116/93/ Appellant in W.A.1958/02 M. Jayanthi ... Ist Respondent in W.P.13117/93/ Appellant in W.A.1959/02 M. Uma Mageshwari ... Ist Respondent in W.P.13114/93/ Appellant in W.A.1960/02 R. Mageshwari ... Ist Respondent in W.P.13115/93/ Appellant in W.A.1961/02 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ V.P. Palanisamy ... Ist Respondent in W.P.13118/93/ Appellant in W.A.2771/03 A.R. Muthuraja ... Ist Respondent in W.P.13119/93/ Appellant in W.A.2772/03 K.C. Muniappan ... Ist Respondent in W.P.13120/93/ Appellant in W.A.2773/02 P. Gopal ... Ist Respondent in W.P.13121/93/ Appellant in W.A.2774/03 VS Sri Venkateswara Service rep by its Managing Partner N. Srirangan Edapadi Salem District ... Petitioner in W.P. 14652/93/ Ist Respondent in W.A.1955/02 R. Chettia Gounder Veerappan Palayam pudur Edapadi, Salem District ... Petitioner in W.P.14653/93/ Ist Respondent in W.A.1956/02 M.K. Shanmugam ... Petitioner in W.P.14651/93 / Ist Respondent in W.A.1957/02 Anna Transport Corporation Ltd., rep by its Managing Director No.12 Ramakrishna road Salem-7 ... Petitioner in W.P. 13116, 13117, 13114, 13115/93 ISt Respondent in W.A.1958, 1959, 1960, 1961/02 M. Uma Maheswari ... Respondent in W.P.13118/93/ Ist Respondent 2771/03 K.S. Krishnaveni ... Respondent in W.P. 13119/93/ Ist Respondent in W.A. 2772/03 R. Maheswari ... Respondent in W.P. 13120/93/ Ist Respondent in W.A. 2773/03 M. Jayanthi ... Respondent in W.P. 13121/93/ Ist Respondent in W.A. 2774/03 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The state Transport Appellate Tribunal City Civil Court Buildings Chennai- 600 104 ... Respondents 2 in W.P. 14652/93, 14653, 14651/93, Respondent 2 in W.A.1955, 1956, 1957/02 3rd Respondent in W.P. 13116, 13117, 13114, 13115, 13118, 13119, 13120, 13121/93 3rd Respondents in W.A.1958, 1959, 1960, 1961/02, 2771/03, 2772, 2773, 2774/03 The Regional Transport Authority Salem At Namakkal ... Respondent 3 in W.P. 14652/93, 14653, 14651/93 Respondent 3 in W.A. 1955/02, 1956, 1957/02 2nd Respondent in W.A. 1958/02, 1959, 1960,1961/02, 2771, 2772, 2773, 2774/03 2nd Respondent in W.P.13116, 13117, 13114, 13115, 13118, 13119, 13120, 13121/93 For appellants in W.A.Nos.1954 to 1959/2002 : Mr.T.Padmanabhan, for Mr.R.Natesan. For appellants in W.A.Nos.1960 & 1961/2002 : Mr.V.T.Gopalan, Senior Counsel, for Mr.C.R.Krishnamoorthy For appellants in W.A.Nos.2771 to 2774/2003 : Mr.M.Palani. For respondents 2 and 3 in all W.As.: Mr.D.Sreenivasan, Spl.Govt.Pleader. For respondent 1 in W.A.Nos.1955 to 1957/2002 : Mr.M.Palani https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For respondent 1 in W.A.Nos.1958,1959 and 1960/2002 : Mr.V.R.Kamalanathan For respondent 1 in W.A.No.1961/2002 : Mr.T.Chandrasekaran For respondent 1 in W.A.No.2771/2003 :Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, Senior Counsel, for M/s.AL.Ganthimathi. For respondent 1 in W.A.Nos.2772 to 2774/2003 : Mr.T.Mohan, for Mr.R.Natesan. Writ Appeal filed under clause 15 of the letter patent against the order of Writ Petition. W.P.13114 to 13117/93, 14654, 14652, 14654, 13118 to 13121/93 Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records on the file of the first respondent dated 8.6.93 made in Appeal No.Nil/92, 241/92, 239/92, 238/92, 240/92. COMMON JUDGMENT V.DHANAPALAN,J. While Writ Appeal Nos.1954 to 1961 of 2002 have been preferred by the appellants, who are the applicants for grant of stage carriage permits, against the order of a learned single Judge, dated 21.12.2001, setting aside the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras, dated 08.06.1993, directing for grant of permits in favour of the appellants, W.A.Nos.2771 to 2774 of 2003 are preferred by the objectors/private existing operators against the order of another learned single Judge, dated 03.07.2000, dismissing the writ petitions to set aside the very same order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, dated 08.06.1993. 2. Though all these Writ Appeals involve a common question of law, as they are divided and preferred against two contra decisions, it is proper to segregate these appeals into two categories, while giving disposal. 3. In the first category, let us decide W.A.Nos.1954 to 1961 of 2002. Of these cases, W.A.No.1960 of 2003 is taken for reference. In this case, the appellant had applied for grant of a stage carriage permit in respect of the route Kumarapalayam to Edapadi under the Motor Vehicles Act,1988, in short, "the Act", https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ before the Regional Transport Authority, Salem, at Namakkal. The route falls under the classification of ordinary stage carriage service, as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules,1989, in short, "the Rules". The route applied for overlaps on the approved scheme in respect of the route Edapadi Bus Stand to Kumarapayalam, published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, dated 22.06.1990, which scheme was challenged before this Court along with other approved schemes and all the schemes were struck down by a Division Bench of this Court, aggrieved over which, Anna Transport Corporation, along with its sister transport undertakings, preferred Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court. During the pendency of the Special Leave Petitions, the Apex Court, in a case arising from the State of Rajasthan, involving identical question of law, took a contra view to that of this Court and impliedly overruled the said judgment. Thereafter, the Regional Transport Authority, taking into account the fact that the grant route applied for overlaps on the approved scheme route, rejected the application, by its order, dated 19.05.1992. Anguished over the said order of the authority, the appellant preferred an appeal on the file of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. Pending the said appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, by an order dated 16.04.1993 and, consequently, the schemes were restored. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal held that the schemes relied upon by the Corporation did not affect the grant route applied for by the appellant, as that being mofussil service, whereas the scheme contemplated town service. On that ground, the Tribunal directed the authority to grant permit in favour of the appellant. The said direction was challenged by the Corporation and also the private operators/objectors in the Writ Petitions. 4. The learned single Judge, after analysing Rule 3 Sub- rules (e) (i) (p) as regards "City and Town Service", "express service" and "ordinary service" and holding that there was no classification of service as mofussil either under the Act or under the Rules and that the permit sought to be granted overlapped on an approved scheme route, allowed the Writ Petitions, setting aside the order of the Tribunal. Hence, these appeals, at the instance of the applicants. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the draft and approved schemes and nationalisation have always made a clear distinction between express buses, mofussil buses and city or town buses; there cannot be a town service route for more than 30 kms. and one of the termini has to be inside a notified town area; the seating capacity of the vehicles is also hugely different since the town services provide for carrying almost 85 passengers including standing passengers and that the word 'ordinary' does not mean moffusil buses. It is also his contention that there is a difference between mofussil and town services; the scheme is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ intended only for plying ordinary services as per clause 3 and clause 6 shows that the State Transport Undertaking is intending to run only town services but not mofussil services; Edapadi to Kumarapalayam is an ordinary town service route only and, hence, the findings of the learned single Judge with regard to the interpretation of the scheme are erroneous and against the settled law on the subject. In his last limb of contentions, the learned counsel would submit that the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 has taken away the right of the existing operators to file objections and the purpose of enacting the Act was to liberalise the grant of permits. The learned counsel would cite a decision of the Supreme Court in Mithilesh Rani and other v. RTA, Dehradun,AIR 1994 Supreme Court 2229, wherein it was held as under : "12. A perusal of the said paragraph would show that the expression “allied routes” referred to the extensions of the route concerned therein. The said expression cannot take in the route concerned herein. No route-map was also filed in the said writ petition from which it can be said that the “allied routes” mentioned in the said writ petition included the route in question herein....In such a situation, there could not have been any objection to the grant of permits to the appellants on the said route...." 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would vehemently argue that these appeals were pending on the date of notification of the Special Act and the route applied for overlapped the notified route; therefore, once the grant route overlapped on such notified route, on the teeth of Section 7 of the State Act viz., Special Act, the appeals automatically stood abated irrespective of the terms of the scheme; the word 'mofussil' had been stated in the format of the old scheme prescribed under the repealed rules and the word 'ordinary' is not found in that scheme and consequently in the absence of mofussil service in the present rule and format prescribed thereunder, it cannot be said that the word 'ordinary' denotes only an ordinary service within the town and it does not exclude mofussil service. The learned counsel has brought to the notice of this Court a decision of the Supreme Court in APSRTC v. Regional Transport Authority, 2005 (4) Supreme Court Cases 391, wherein it was held as follows : "11. The object of the Scheme appears to be to nationalise the entire service. Through nationalisation of the service, effort is to provide better service to the commuters at cheaper cost. One of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ exceptions to the Scheme is for existing town services operating on the notified routes. The reason for which appears to be that the existing town services need not be disturbed so that the commuters do not suffer." "21. In our view, under Exception 2 contained in the note appended to the Scheme, subject-matter of the present appeals, permits can be issued only to existing town services operating on the notified routes. This means only existing operators on the notified routes are eligible for permits. Fresh applicants or future applicants are totally ineligible for getting permits for town services operating on notified routes...." 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the records. 8. There is no classification of service as "mofussil" either under the Act or under the Rules and the permit sought to be granted overlapped on an approved scheme route. For the scheme Kumarapalayam to Edapadi, the portion of route that overlapped is Kumarapalayama to Annamarkoil. 9. Section 103 (2) of the Act reads as under : "For the purpose of giving effect to the approved scheme in respect of a notified area or notified route, the State Transport Authority or as the case may be, the Regional Transport Authority concerned may, by order.- (a) refuse to entertain any application for the grant or renewal of any other permit or reject any such application as may be pending. 10. The above provision would clearly indicate that where there is an approved scheme already existing in respect of a notified area or notified route, the Regional Transport Authority may refuse to entertain the application for grant of permit or reject any such application. The same has exactly happened in these cases. In other words, as there is an approved scheme already existing in respect of the notified route viz., Kumarapalayam to Edipadi, the Regional Transport Authority has rejected the application of the appellant for grant of permit, which cannot be found fault with. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 11. It is equally relevant to extract Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Act, popularly known as Tamil Nadu Act 41 of 1992, in short, "the Special Act", which reads thus : "7.Pending applications and appeals for grant of new permits to abate.- Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, every application for grant of new permit on a notified route and all appeals arising therefrom or relating thereto, made or preferred before the date of publication of this Act in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, and pending before any court, with any officer, authority or tribunal constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act, on the said date, shall abate." 12. From the above provision, it is manifest that every application for grant of new permit on a notified route and all appeals, arising therefrom or relating thereto, made or preferred before the date of the publication of this Act in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette and pending before any Court or with any officer, authority or tribunal, on the said date, shall stand abated. 13. The Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Act,1992, received the assent of the President on 31.07.1992 and the same was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on the same day. So, on the date of publication of this Act in the Gazette, the appeal filed by the appellant was pending. In addition, the grant route applied for overlapped on the notified route. As such, on the date of enactment of this Special Act, the appeal filed by the appellant was hit by Section 7. Further, on the date when the appeal was heard by the Tribunal i.e., 08.06.1993, there was no appeal pending in the eye of law, as the same stood abated on the date of notification of the Special Act. This Special Act is meant for stage carriage service and when it contemplates any route covered by an approved scheme route, whether it is town or ordinary or express, no class of service can be granted on such approved schemes. That being the legal position, the Tribunal committed an error in directing for grant of permit on the notified route, on the strength of classification of services within the stage carriage. 14. It is also quite appropriate to quote sub-section (4) of Section 6 of the Special Act, which runs as follows: "Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no new permit shall be granted https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ under this Act to any person on any route covered by an approved scheme." 15. It is needless to mention that the Special Act prevails over the General Act. The above provision also makes evident that no new permit shall be granted under the Special Act to any person on any route covered by an approved scheme, as, admittedly, the route in question is a notified route and covered by the approved scheme. Therefore, there cannot be two permits on one particular notified route, covered by the scheme. 16. The permits sought for by the private operators in the present case cannot be equated with special permits envisaged under Section 88 (8) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988. The object of granting special permits is totally different. Special permits are meant to cater to special needs of the public on special occasions like marriage parties, pilgrimage etc. In other words, the permits sought for by the private operators are stage carriage permits for general purpose and not for a particular purpose or occasion. Were the permits sought for special in nature, the situation would have been different. 17. Though the case of Mithilesh Rani was cited by the learned counsel for the appellant to show that the Supreme Court was not inclined to entertain the objections raised by the private operators, it is not applicable to the case on hand, for the reason, that, pursuant to the said decision, the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Act was enacted, which prohibited the grant of new permits. 18. Similarly, the decision cited by the learned counsel for the respondents in APSRTC's case to the effect that only existing operators on the notified routes are eligible for permits and fresh applicants or future applicants are totally ineligible for getting permits for town services operating on notified routes does not bind this Court because, in that case, a constitution bench of the Supreme Court arrived at such a decision, based on exception 2, contained in the note appended to the scheme, which was categorical that the scheme should not affect the existing town services operating on the notified routes. 19. In view of the above statutory provisions, observations and findings, these Writ Appeals fail and are dismissed, confirming the order of the learned single Judge. No costs. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 20. Following the dismissal of the above Writ Appeals, the second category of cases viz., W.A.Nos.2771 to 2774 of 2003 stand allowed, setting aside the order of the learned single Judge. No costs. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. dixit To 1. The Registrar City Civil Court Chennai 2. The state Transport Appellate Tribunal City civil Court Buildings Chenani-104 3. The Regional Transport Authority Salem At Namakkal 4. The Managing Director Anna Transport Corporation No.12 Ramakrishna Road Salem-7 1 cc to Mr.M. Palani Advocate, Sr. 66965 7 ccs to Mr.R. Natesan, Advocate, SR. 67108, 67107 2 ccs to Mr.C.R. Krishnamurthy, Advocate, Sr. 67109 1 cc to Mr.V.R. Kamalanathan, Advocate, SR. 67166 1 cc to Government Pleader, Sr. 67490 W.A.No.1954 of 2002 BATCH NSM (CO) kk 26/12 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/