IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 05.01.2010 Coram : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH Writ Appeals Nos.2161, 3101 to 3103, 3115 to 3117, 3119, 3120, 2766, 3098 to 3100, 3122 to 3124, 3104 to 3106 of 2002 SRI GANAPATHY BUS SERVICE, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER S.PALANISAMY, 1951-E, TRICHY ROAD, RAMANATHAPURAM, COIMBATORE. ...APPELLANT IN W.A.2161/2002/ PETITIONER IN W.P.24032/02 HAPPY RIDE TRANSPOFTS REP.BY ITS PARTNER M.MANOHAR ...Appellant in W.A.3101/2002/ Petitioner in W.P.24053/02 SUBBATAL PARAMASIVAM P.N.P. TRANSPORTS ...Appellant in W.A.3102/2002/ Petitioner in W.P.24054/02 SREE DEVI BUS TRANSPORTS REP.BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER R.RAVIKUMAR ...Appellant in W.A.3103/2002/ Petitioner in W.P.24050/02 K.A.G.TRAVELS REP.BY ITS PARTNER A.MUTHU RATHINA SABAPATHY ...Appellant in W.A.3115/2002/ Petitioner in W.P.24047/02 A.DURAISAMY D.S.P. BUS SERVICE ...Appellant in W.A.3116/2002/ Petitioner in W.P.24048/02 A. PALANISAMY ...Appellant in W.A.3117/2002/ Petitioner in W.P.24049/02 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ SANTHAMANI MOTOR SERVICE BY ITS PARTNER K. MANTHRACHALA GOUNDER ...Appellant in W.A.3119/2002/ Petitioner in W.P.24061/02 K.SUBRAMANIAN SRI MANI TRANSPORT ...Appellant in W.A.3120/2002/ Petitioner in W.P.24064/02 T.KANCHANA ...Appellant in W.A.2766/2002/ Petitioner in W.P.24035/02 T.VASANTHAMANI ...Appellant in W.A.3098/2002/ Petitioner in W.P.24066/02 SWAMY BUS TRANSPORTS REP.BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER S.NATARAJAN ...Appellant in W.A.3099/2002/ Petitioner in W.P.24069/02 S.PALANISAMY PROP. NATARAJA TRANSPORTS ...Appellant in W.A.3100/2002/ Petitioner in W.P.24038/02 SANTHAMANI BUS SERVICES REP.BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER K.MANTHRACHALA GOUNDER ...Appellant in W.A.3122/2002/ Petitioner in W.P.24043/02 SRI SELVAKUMAR TRANSPORTS REP.BY ITS PARTNER T.RENUKA DEVI ...Appellant in W.A.3123/2002/ Petitioner in W.P.24041/02 M.VISALAKSHI ...Appellant in W.A.3124/2002/ Petitioner in W.P.24042/02 SUBBATHAL PARAMASIVAM ...Appellant in W.A.3104/2002/ Petitioner in W.P.24059/02 M. VISALAKSHI ...Appellant in W.A.3105/2002/ Petitioner in W.P.24057/02 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ N.LAKSHMANAPATHI ...Appellant in W.A.3106/2002/ Petitioner in W.P.24056/02 v. 1. The Regional Transport Officer, Coimbatore South, Coimbatore. 2. The Regional Transport Authority and the District Collector, Coimbatore. 3. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Tiruppur. 4. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Traffic, Coimbatore City Police, Coimbatore. Respondents IN ALL THE W.AS / RESPONDENT IN WPS Writ appeals filed against the common order of a learned single Judge of this Court dated 05.07.2002 made in writ petitions Nos.24032, 24053, 24054, 24050, 24047, 24048, 24049, 24061, 24064, 24035, 24066, 24069, 24033, 24043, 24041, 24042, 24059, 24057 AND W.P.24056/02. Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of writs of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records in R.C.24211/A3/2002 dated 21.06.2002 of the I Respondent and quash the same in so far as it relates to the petitioner in each W.P. with respect to the stage carriage bearing registration Nos. 1. TN/37/C/6336 2. TN/39/W/222 3. TN/39/L/3777 4. TN/38/L1819 5. TN/37/S/5335 6. TN/39/S/6969 7. TN/39/T/7025 8. TN/39/V/9266 9.TN/39/T/6116 10.TN/37/W/9966 11.TN/39/P/5449 12.TN/39/L/8338 13.TN/39/R/1770 14.TN/39/W/9266 15.TN/37/V/5775 16.TN/39/T/3236 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 17.TN/39/Q/444 18.TN/39/R/9266 19.TN/39/M/8989 respectively beyond Singanallur upto Coimbatore Central Bus Stand at Gandhipuram as per the conditions of permit. For appellants : Mr.K.Doraisamy, Senior Counsel, for M/s. Muthumani Doraisamy For respondents : Mr.K.Balakrishnan, Additional Government Pleader JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN, J.) These appeals are filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 05.07.2002 made in the respective writ petitions non suiting the respective writ petitioners for the relief of quashing the order 21.06.2002 impugned in the writ petitions wherein and whereby the mofusil buses plying via Palladam, Sulur and Ondipudur and reaching Gandhipuram central bus stand was restricted to Singanallur new bus stand. 2. Before the learned Judge, it was contended that such restriction was against the statutory provisions of section 72(2) (xxii) of the Motor Vehicles Act and also Clause (f) of Rule 244 of the Motor Vehicles Rules. Such contention has not found favour before the learned singe Judge. Hence, the present writ appeals are filed. 3. When the matter is pending before this Court, the Regional Transport Officer, Coimbatore South, has filed a supplementary affidavit. In that, after referring to the earlier affidavit filed by it, the deponent averred that after considering the representation of the short distance commuters expressing their difficulty of change over of buses to reach Gandhipuram, the respondents felt that the objections of the construction of Singanallur bus stand is to reduce congestion in Gandhipuram bus stand and inside Coimbatore city and was decided that the authorities could consider permitting only the very short distance buses, i.e., buses coming from Coimbatore originating from points within 55 kms of the city to terminate at Gandhipuram bus stand after stopping in Singanallur bus stand. However, all the buses plying via Trichy road and coming to Coimbatore from beyond the distance of 55 kms including Madurai, Trichy, Karur, etc., will terminate at Singanallur while the buses plying from the very short distances, i.e., within 55 kms, via Ayyankoil, Sulur, Palladam, Tiruppur can be considered terminating at Gandhipuram bus stand after entering into Singanallur bus stand. This arrangement would be a good trade off between public convenience and reducing congestion in Gandhipuram bus stand and the city. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. When the matter is taken up, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the distance of the route which is the subject matter of writ appeals covers only less than 55 kms and as such, the appellants cannot have any grievance and suffice it to pass an order in terms of the supplementary affidavit. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that as all the appellants are plying their buses only in the route which covers only a distance less than 55 kms, the reasoning stated in the supplementary affidavit would virtually answer the relief sought for by the appellants. 6. We heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record, particularly the supplementary affidavit sworn in by the Regional Transport Authority, Coimbatore South. 7. It is also admitted across the bar that all these buses plying in the bus route reaching Gandhipuram bus stand are covering only a distance of less than 55 kms to reach Gandhipuram bus stand. The relief sought for by the appellants had been granted by the respondents themselves. Therefore, recording the above stand taken in paragraph 2 of the supplementary affidavit of the Regional Transport Authority, these writ appeals are disposed of in terms of the supplementary affidavit. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Asst.Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar. mf To 1. The Regional Transport Officer, Coimbatore South, Coimbatore. 2. The Regional Transport Authority and the District Collector, Coimbatore. 3. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Tiruppur. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Traffic, Coimbatore City Police, Coimbatore. 10 ccs to M/s. Muthumani Doraisamy, Advocate, SR. 552 1 cc to Government Pleader, SR. 690 W As Nos.2161, 3101 to 3103, 3115 to 3117, 3119, 3120, 2766, 3098 to 3100, 3122 to 3124, 3104 to 3106 of 2002 TM(CO) kk 19/1 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/