IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 28-02-2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.349 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011 A.Shivakumar .. Petitioner. Versus 1.The Regional Transport Officer, Hosur, Krishnagiri District. 2.The Transport Commissioner-cum- State Transport Authority, Chepauk, Chennai-5. 3.The Managing Director, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Limited, Dharmapuri District. (R3 impleaded as per order dated 17.2.2011, by MJJ in M.P.No.2 of 2011 in W.P.No.349 of 2011) .. Respondents. Prayer: Petition filed seeking for a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the first respondent or his subordinates from interfering or disturbing the peaceful operation of the petitioners vehicle No.KA-01-B-3138 plying on the Route Baklipura to Bangalore. For Petitioner : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, Senior Advocate for Mr.H.Rajasekar For Respondents : Mr.S.Gopinathan Additional Government Pleader (R1 & R2) Mr.M.Ravi Bharathi (R3) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E R 1. Heard the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsels appearing for the respondents. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner had been granted an enclave permit, by the State Transport Authority, Bangalore, for the route, Baklipura to Bangalore, for a period of five years, from 23.4.1998 to 22.4.2003. Thereafter, by an order, dated 10.4.2008, the concerned authority had renewed the permit of the petitioner, for a further period of five years, from 23.4.2008 to 22.4.2013. 3. It has been further stated that, in the interest of the traveling public, the petitioner had made an application for the replacement of the vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-05-A-4077, which was a 1995 model vehicle, with the vehicle bearing Registration No.KA- 01-B-3138, which is a 2005 model vehicle. The request made by the petitioner had been granted by the concerned authority. However, the first respondent had been interfering with the operation of the vehicle belonging to the petitioner, from the month of December, 2010, by unnecessarily detaining the vehicle, for more than two hours at a time, without issuing a check report. Thus, the petitioner, as well as the traveling public, had been put to serious hardship and mental agony. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the permit had been granted to the petitioner to ply the vehicle in question, upto the year, 2013. So long as the permit granted in favour of the petitioner by the transport authorities of the State of Karnataka is valid, the transport authorities belonging to the State of Tamil Nadu cannot interfere with the plying of the vehicle, by the petitioner, in the State of Tamil Nadu. 5. The learned counsel had also submitted that the orders passed by the Karnataka State Transport authorities had been challenged by some persons, who were aggrieved by the grant of permit in favour of the petitioners. However, no orders have been passed in the Revision Petition Nos.764 of 2010 and 765 of 2010. Until final orders are passed in the said revision petitions the first respondent and his subordinates should be prevented from interfering with the operation of the vehicles in question, within the State of Tamilnadu. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first and the second respondents had stated that the writ petitions are not maintainable, as the enclave permit route from Baklipura to Bangalore via Hosur falls in the Area of an Approved Scheme of Dharmapuri District, published in the Government Order, in G.O.Ms.No.1529, Home (Transport III) Department, dated 17.11.1999. The schemes have been published, as per the special permission relating to the State Transport undertakings, under Chapter VI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The petitioner is not a protected operator, either under the Area Approved Scheme and the Intestate Approved Scheme or under the provisions of the Tamilnadu Act 41 of 1992. Therefore, the operation of the vehicle in question, by the petitioner, overlapping the Area Approved Scheme sector is illegal, as it is contrary to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 7. It has also been stated that, in respect of similar issues the Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Limited, Dharmapuri Region, had filed revision petitions, in Revision Petition Nos.1048 and 1058 of 1998, before the Karnataka State Appellate Tribunal at Bangalore, challenging the permits granted by the Karnataka State Transport Authority, Bangalore, on the ground that the portion of the route in the State of Tamilnadu overlaps the Area Approved Scheme of Dharmapuri Revenue District. The said Revision petitions had been allowed in favour of the State Transport undertakings. Certain private operators had preferred writ petitions, in W.P.Nos.2162 of 1999 and 16662 of 1999, before the High Court of Karnataka. The orders passed by the Karnataka State Appellate Tribunal had been upheld by the High Court of Karnataka in its order, dated 23.7.1999. However, the Karnataka State Transport Authority, Bangalore, had been renewing the permits, periodically, upto the year, 2013, contrary to the orders passed by the Karnataka State Appellate Tribunal, as well as the High Court of Karnataka. 8. It has also been stated that in similar matters this Court, by its order, dated 5.11.2004, made in W.P.No.22332 of 2003, had passed certain orders against the State Transport Authority, Bangalore, against the issuing of enclave permits, in spite of the area scheme, which is in existence in the State of Tamilnadu. Further, a Division Bench of this Court in its order, dated 3.2.2005, in W.A.Nos.111 to 119 of 2005, had observed that permits issued, under Section 88(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, cannot be read in isolation and they have to be read, along with Sections 100(3) and 104 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Special Leave Petition filed by the operators before the Supreme Court had also been dismissed, confirming the orders passed by this Court. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 9. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents and in view of the records available, it is seen that the petitioner has been plying the vehicle in question, on the routes covered by the Area Approved Scheme, based on the permits issued by the Karnataka State Transport Authority, Bangalore, without the authority of law, contrary to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 10. The Karnataka State Transport Authority, Bangalore, had been periodically renewing the permits in favour of the petitioner, in spite of the orders passed by the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal, as well as the High Court of Madras in a number of writ petitions and in the connected writ appeals stated supra, prohibiting the issuing of such permits, contrary to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 11. The Special Leave Petitions filed against the said orders had also been dismissed. In such circumstances, it would not be appropriate for the petitioner to claim that he should be permitted to operate the vehicle in question in the route overlapping the Area Approved Scheme, in the State of Tamilnadu, without any interference from the concerned authorities, as prayed for by the petitioner, in the present writ petition. As such, the writ petition is devoid of merits and hence, it stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar csh To 1.The Regional Transport Officer, Hosur, Krishnagiri District. 2.The Transport Commissioner-cum- State Transport Authority, Chepauk, Chennai-5. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.The Managing Director, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Limited, Dharmapuri District. +1cc to Mr.H.Rajasekar, Advocate Sr 14011 +1cc to Mr.Ravi Bharathi, Advocate Sr 13966 +1cc to Govt. Pleader Sr 14582 +1cc to Mr.M.Palani, Advocate Sr 14747 VSV(CO) km/11.3. Writ Petition No.349 of 2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/