IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :: 08.03.2011 CORAM :: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUDHAKAR Writ Petition No:5651 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 The General Manager The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram)Limited Vellore Region Rengapuram, Vellore 632 009 .. Petitioner /vs/ 1.D.F.Fathima 2.The Regional Transport Authority Vellore 3.The Secretary The State Transport Appellate Tribunal Chennai 104 .. Respondents Writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to Judgment made in Appeal No.235/1999 and 236/1999 dated 17.09.2007 on the file of the third respondent and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr. M. Ravi Bharathi For Respondent No1 : Mr. P.V. Sachithanantham for N. Gopalakrishnan For Respondent No.2 : Ms. R. Anitha Additional Government Pleader ORDER Writ petition has been filed by the petitioner calling for the records relating to Judgment made in Appeal No.235/1999 and 236/1999 dated 17.09.2007 on the file of the third respondent and quash the same. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The General Manager/Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation has filed the writ petition challenging the order passed by the third respondent, namely, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in Appeal Nos.235 of 1999 and 236 of 1999 dated 17.09.2007. The first respondent applied for grant of temporary permit to ply her vehicles in the notified area/route meant exclusive for the State Transport Undertaking on the ground that no regular permit has been issued to the State Transport undertaking in respect of the notified route. This plea was rejected by the second respondent/the Regional Transport Authority and hence an appeal was filed by the first respondent before the third respondent/State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Chennai and the appeal filed by the first respondent was allowed in the following manner:- "Appeal No.235/99 In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the 1st respondent made on 31.03.99 in his proceedings R.No.368/A2/99 and the appellant is granted temporary permit as sought for in her application subject to condition that the same shall cease to be effective on the issue of permit in the prescribed form to the State Transport Undertaking in respect of that area and the lower authority is directed to issue temporary permit to the appellant within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of the judgment along with the connected records. Appeal No.236 /99 In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the 1st respondent made on 31.3.99 in his proceedings R.No.4924/A2/99 and the appellant is granted temporary permit as sought for in her application subject to condition that the same shall cease to be effective on the issue of permit in the prescribed form to the State transport Undertaking in respect of that area and the lower authority is directed to issue temporary permit to the appellant within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of the judgment along with the connected records." Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. At the time of final disposal, the learned Government Advocate pointed out from records that the condition, which was prevailing at the time of passing the order in the appeal which is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ challenged has changed and it does not hold good any longer. 4. It is stated on instruction that the State Transport Undertaking/petitioner herein has been issued a pucca (regular) permit on 14.12.2007, that is after the order was passed by the third respondent tribunal. 5. The appellate order under challenge clearly states that the temporary permit sought for by the first respondent and granted is subject to the condition that it shall cease to be effective on the issue of a regular permit in the prescribed form to the State Transport Undertaking for the area in issue. Therefore on and from 14.12.2007, when the regular permit is given to petitioner the temporary permit issued to the first respondent will cease. In view of specific and unambiguous order of the third respondent no further adjudication is required. The Appellate order is a self-contained order and the first respondent cannot claim any right based on the said order as the effect of the order would cease on the issue of a pucca permit on 14.12.2007 as stated above. 6. Recording the statement of the Government Advocate that a pucca permit has been issued on 14.11.2007 and in view of the specific nature of the order passed by the third respondent, the writ petition challenging the impugned proceedings becomes infructuous and is closed. It is also clarified that the first respondent will have no right over the notified route on or from 14.12.2007. 7. The writ petition is disposed off recording the statement as above. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/ Assistant Registrar /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Regional Transport Authority Vellore https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.The Secretary The State Transport Appellate Tribunal Chennai 104 + One C.C. To Mr. S. Govindaraman Sr.No.17021 + once C.C. To Government Pleader Sr.No.16945 + one C.C. To Mr. M,. Ravibharathi Advocate Sr.No.17120 W.P.No.5651 of 2008 & M.P.No.1 of 2008 MG[CO] KS 30/03/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/