AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G. Rajasuria, J.—The petition has been filed to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner''s mini bus bearing Reg. No. TN-74-Y-2848
to ply upto Marthandam Bus Stand from Kuzhithurai Via Vettumani and allow the mini bus while plying on the route from Kaliakkavilai to
Marthandam bus stand instead of Kuzhithurai to Kanachakulam.
The grievance of the petitioner as aired by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is to the effect that in accordance with the bus route scheme,
the petitioner was authorised to ply the mini bus from Kuzhithurai to Manachakulam; Marthandam bus stand is situated 1.4 Kms away from the
end of the bus route meant for the petitioner. As such, if the petitioner is permitted to ply for that 1.4 Kms also, then the mini bus could reach
Marthandam bus stand which would be beneficial to the general public.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that even the authority cannot grant permission to the mini bus route over and above 4
Kms, but only this Court is competent to give direction enabling the petitioner to ply the total distance of 2 Kms.
Heard the learned Government Advocate (Writs) for the respondents.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner would place reliance on the decision of this Court in W.P. No. 31835 of 2007 and M.P. No. 1 of 2007
dated 20.02.2008. An excerpt from it, would run thus:
As far as the issue namely whether the petitioner would be violating the rules in operating beyond 4 kms in the served sector is concerned, time
and again, this Court has held that in case of necessity and in public interest such negligible distance of overlapping beyond 4 kms could be
permitted in the larger public interest. Such view has been stated in the decision reported in K. Chinnapappu v. M. Mariappa Chettiar 1976 2
M.L.J 329 which was followed in Navaneetham. P and 2 Ors. v. The Regional Transport Authority, Kamarajar District at Virudhunagar and Anr.
1994 W.L.R. 340 on the principle ""Law does not take note of trifles."" The same view was expressed in the recent decision of Mr. Justice
M.E.N.Patrudu in W.P.Nos.804 to 806 of 2006 dated 15.06.06.
In these circumstances, the respondent is directed to consider the petitioner''s application dated 18.08.2005, for variation to operate his Mini
Bus bearing Registration No. TN-27-N-0272 from Seetharampallam School to Tiruchengode Bus Stand covering the distance of 0.8 kms and
pass orders in accordance with law and in the light of the above referred two decisions, expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, the connected M.P is closed. No costs.
I am of the considered opinion that unless this Court is satisfied that there is any violation of rights including the right to conduct business, this
Court will not interfere in matters of this nature. No doubt, what the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits at the first blush may appear to be
attractive that covering an additional distance of 1.4 Kms would be beneficial to public, so that the people could rightly be taken to Marthandam
bus stand instead of leaving them at a distance of 1.4 Kms away from the Marthandam bus stand and making them to catch hold some other
vehicles to reach the bus stand.
These are matters which are within the realm of administrative authorities and in whatever manner this has to be processed, the authorities
concerned should consider. Accordingly, the following direction is issued:
On receipt of a copy of this order, the petitioner shall file a representation before the authority concerned who shall consider it as to how far this
could be re-arranged in such a manner without violating the bus route scheme and the rules concerned. Accordingly, after giving due opportunity of
being heard to the petitioner, the same shall be disposed of within a period of one month thereon.
With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.