In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 21.01.2008 Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice S.MANIKUMAR W.P.Nos. 11216, 11218 and 11252 of 2002 and W.M.P.Nos.15151, 15154 and 15198 of 2002 S.Nallamuthu .. Petitioner in W.P.No.11216 of 2002 M.Sivakumar .. Petitioner in W.P.No.11218 of 2002 M.Guruvammal .. Petitioner in W.P.No.11252 of 2002 v The Secretary to The Regional Transport Authority, Virudhunagar .. Respondent in all Wps Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari, to call for the records of the respondent made respectively in R.No.2277/E2/2002, 2276/E2/2002 and 2275/E2/2002 dated 05.03.2002, modifying the area of operation as Vrudhunagar bus stand and radius of 30 Kms. Instead of Sivakasi bus stand in a radius of 30 kms. Granted earlier in R.No.2276/E2/2002, 2277/E2/2002 and 2275/E2/2002 dated 22.01.2002, in so far as the area of operation is concerned and to quash the same. For petitioners : Mr. Adhil Basha For respondent : Mr.S.Gopinathan AGP O R D E R The petitioners have filed these writ petitions praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the orders of the respondent dated 05.03.2002 modifying the area of operation from Virudhunagar bus stand within a radius of 30 kms.instead of Sivakasi bus stand within a radius of 30 kms and for further orders. 2. The petitioners have applied for the grant of a minidor auto- rickshaw permit before the respondent on 22.01.2002 under sections 69,73 and 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 r/w Rule 170 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules 1989, so as to ply the vehicle in and around 30 kms. radius from Sivakasi Town bus stand. The respondent, after examining the applications, issued proceedings on the same day directing the petitioners to produce the vehicle with valid Registration certificate, Insurance Certificate and tax paid receipt, within three months from the date of the said order. When the petitioners went to the office of the respondent to produce the vehicles with valid documents, they were served with the impugned orders dated 05.03.2002, amending the area of operation as Virudhunagar Headquarters with 30 kms radius from Virudhunagar Central bus stand. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that they are the residents of Sivakasi and they made applications for the grant of permit to ply the minidor auto-rickshaw only in and around Sivakasi bus stand within a radius of 30 kms. But the respondent, without issuing any notice to the petitioners, served the impugned order, amending the order issued earlier, with regard to the area of operation, which is highly illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the petitioners have filed the present writ petitions and prayed to quash the impugned orders. 4. Mr.Adhil Basha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that as per the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Act, the respondent has no jurisdiction to modify the area of operation without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and it is contrary to Sections 74 (ix) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which states that the Regional Transport Authority may, after giving notice of not less than one month, (a) vary the conditions of the permit and (b) attach to the permit further conditions. Hence, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside on the sole ground of violative of natural justice. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the request of the petitioners was to ply the vehicles within 30 kms radius in Sivakasi Bus Stand and that the respondent has no jurisdiction to modify the order by introducing a different area, which is not mentioned in the applications. He further submitted that based on the earlier orders dated 22.01.2002, the petitioners have purchased the vehicles at huge costs thinking that they would operate the vehicles within 30 days radius in Sivakasi and any change made in the route or permit conditions affects their ought to trade or business offending Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. 6. The respondent has not filed any counter-affidavit denying the averments made in the writ petitions. However, Mr.S.Gopinathan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent fairly submitted that the impugned order does not disclose any reason for modifying the area of operation and sought time for instructions. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 8. A perusal of the order dated 22.01.2002 reveals that the respondent has granted/sanctioned permits to the petitioners to ply their minidor auto-rickshaws within the radius of 30 kms.in Sivakasi bus stand and on the routes permitted thereto. The petitioners have been directed to produce necessary documents viz. the Registration Certificate, Insurance certificate, tax paid receipt, driving licence, within three months from the date of receipt of the order and in default, orders would be passed as per Rule 181 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules. The said sanction orders sent by registered post to the petitioners, have been acknowledged by them on 31.01.2002. But by the impugned order without providing an opportunity, the areas of operation have been modified and that the petitioners have been permitted to ply their vehicles in and around the Virudhunagar District limits,within a radius of 30 kms. 9. It is seen from the order dated 22.01.2002, permits to ply the minidor Auto-rickshaws were granted under Section 74 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, which reads as follows: (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), a Regional Transport Authority may, on an application made to it under Section 73, grant a contract carriage permit in accordance with the application or with such modifications as it deems fit or refuse to grant such a permit. Provided that no such permit shall be granted in respect of any area not specified in the application." 10. Once, the sanction of permit is ordered with the area of operation within 30kms radius, namely, in Sivakasi Bus Stand, the respondent cannot vary the conditions of permit on his own accord. In case of variation of conditions of permit, Section 74 (ix) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 contemplates "that the Regional Transport Authority may, after giving notice of not less than one month, (a) vary the conditions of the permit and; (b) attach to the permit further conditions". 11. A perusal of the impugned orders challenged in these writ petitions, apparently does not indicate the reasons for alteration of the area made by the respondent. Further, the orders of the respondent in modifying the area of operation, without issuing notice to the petitioners as contemplated under Section 74 (ix) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, certainly violates the principles of natural justice and, therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and accordingly, the impugned orders in all these three writ petitions are set side. 13. In the result, these writ petitions are allowed. Consequently,connected W.P.M.Ps.are closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar kvsg To The Regional Transport Authority, Virudhunagar. 1 CC To Mr.A.Jenasenan, Advocate, SR NO.2205 1 CC to the Government Pleader, SR NO.2304 W.P.Nos. 11216, 11218 and 11252 of 2002 KJ(CO) rvr 03/06/08