AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Jyothimani, J.—Heard Mr. C.R. Krishnamoorthy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. K.M. Vijayakumar, learned
Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
In these Writ Petitions, the prayer is to permit the petitioners, who are the stage carriage permit holders plying from various places to
Thoothukudi, to go upto old bus stand via new bus stand between 06.00 a.m. to 06.00 p.m. every day. While the writ petitioner in W.P.(MD)
No. 4571 of 2010 is a stage carriage permit holder in respect of the vehicle bearing Registration No. TN-69-R-3682 plying on the route from
Kovilpatti to Thoothukkudi via Kamanayanpatti, Pasuvanthunai, Ottapidaram and Puthiamputhur, the writ petitioner in W.P.(MD) No. 4907 of
2010 is a stage carriage permit holder operating two stage carriage permits covered by the vehicles bearing Registration Nos. TN-69/T/5577 and
TN-69AZ/1122 on the routes Sankarankovil to Tuticorin (Via) Kovilpatti, Thiruvenkadam etc. & Tuticorin to Masarpatti (Via) Kovilpatti,
Irkkankudi, etc., the writ petitioner in W.P.(MD) No. 5001 of 2010 is a stage carriage permit holder operating the vehicle bearing Registration
No. TN/67/AA 5577 on the route Tuticorin to Sivakasi (Via) Kovilpatti, Satur etc.
The common grievance of these petitioners is that the permit granted to them to ply and reach the destination at Thoothukudi is to terminate at
old bus stand. However, when a new bus stand was constructed by the Municipality, a restriction was sought to be imposed by the respondents
that the buses reaching Thoothukudi bus stand are to terminate at new bus stand, which has been constructed, during day time 06.00 a.m. to 06.00
p.m., while during night time 06.00 p.m. to 06.00 a.m., they are permitted to reach the old bus stand after touching the new bus stand. This
conduct of the respondents is challenged in these Writ Petitions on the ground that when the original permit granted in their favour permits them to
terminate at old bus stand, the restriction imposed to the above said effect that during day time 06.00 a.m. to 06.00 p.m., that permit holders are to
terminate at new bus stand and it is only during night time 06.00 p.m. to 06.00 a.m., they should reach the old bus stand is arbitrary, especially
when the State Transport Corporations are permitted to reach the old bus stand even during day times.
It is seen that earlier as per the direction given in a batch of Writ Petitions in W.P. Nos. 13229 of 1992, etc., the first respondent has conducted
an enquiry by giving opportunity to the stage carriage operators and others and in his proceedings dated 16.10.1999, he has taken such decision.
The said decision taken by the first respondent came to be challenged before this Court by one of the stage carriage permit holders in W.P. No.
1155 of 2005 and this Court, by an order dated 03.07.2007, on the request of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, giving opportunity to the
petitioner to make a representation to the appropriate authority, has dismissed the Writ Petition. It is relevant to point out that when such order
was passed, the learned Counsel has brought to the notice of this Court that in respect of the State Transport Undertakings, they are permitted to
terminate at old bus stand even during day times and that right has been denied to the stage carriage permit holders, who have been granted permit
to terminate at old bus stand and it was, in those circumstances, this Court has permitted the petitioner to make a representation to the Regional
Transport Authority. Based on the said observation of this Court, it is seen that the said writ petitioner has made a representation to the Regional
Transport Authority as early as on 01.08.2007 bringing to the notice of the authority that there cannot be a differential treatment between the State
Transport Undertakings and the Stage carriage permit holders and also making out a case that the public are affected because of the prevention of
the stage carriage permit holders from terminating their vehicles in the old bus stand during the day times. However, it remains a fact that in spite of
such representations having been given as early as on 01.08.2007, the respondents have not passed any orders and it is the case of the petitioners,
as submitted by the learned Counsel, that the Regional Transport Authority has not even convened the necessary meetings for the purpose of
deciding the issue based on the representation stated above, which has resulted in depriving of the petitioners in terminating at old bus stand, while
the State Transports are terminating at old bus stand during the day times, which affect the right of the petitioners in carrying on that right
guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
In the counter-affidavit filed by the first respondent, while the first respondent has chosen to state that the decision taken in the year 1999 was
due to the reason that at that time, a new bridge was under construction and, therefore, in order to avoid traffic congestion, such decision was
taken not permitting the stage carriage permit holders to terminate at old bus stand during the day times. However, during the night time, the traffic
congestion was not difficult and, therefore, permitted them to go upto the old bus stand and that was the decision taking note of the public interest
and also the convenience of the public at large, which is the basic object of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. But, now the fact remains,
as stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, that the construction of the new bridge has come to an end and in spite of it, an arrangement
made in the year 1999 is continuing and it is certainly distressing to note that in spite of the representations having been made by the petitioners as
early as in the year 2007, the respondents have not taken note of the change in situation, which is under obligation under the Motor Vehicles Act,
to perform.
The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would also submit that since the Regional Transport Authority has not taken note of the
change of circumstances, in spite of lapse of two years, a direction should be given permitting the petitioners to operate the vehicles during day
times upto the old bus stand and that will be subject to the final decision, which may be taken by the Regional Transport Authority.
To decide about the convenience of public, it is eminently on the part of the Regional Transport Authority who happens to be the District
Collector who has been entrusted with such duty. It is true that on the facts of the present case, when the Collector has taken a decision in the year
1999, the bridge was under construction and, therefore, taking note of the public interest, such restriction came to be imposed. Of course, having
realised the correctness of that public issue, one of the petitioners, who have earlier approached this Court, has withdrawn the said Writ Petition
with a direction to make a representation and accordingly, a representation was made in the year 2007. Now that, it is not in dispute that the
construction of the bridge is completed, in all fairness, the Regional Transport Authority ought to have taken a decision by following the process
which are contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, especially Rule 245, the District Collector, the first respondent herein has
not taken such decision, so far, for a period of two years. However, in my considered view, such delay on the part of the first respondent does not
mean that this Court should give such direction, unless and until the convenience of public which has to be decided by the District Collector is
ascertained. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the first respondent should be directed to decide the issue at an early point of time and
pending such decision, it will not be proper for this Court to exercise its discretion permitting the petitioners to travel the destination upto the old
bus stand.
In such view of the matter, the Writ Petitions stand disposed of with a direction against the first respondent to consider the representations made
by the petitioners dated 01.08.2007 seeking permission to terminate their vehicles at old bus stand during day time as well as night time, as it is
permitted in respect of stage transport carriages and pass appropriate orders by following the procedure contemplated under the Rules and such
orders shall be passed by the first respondent within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Making it clear that if
such a decision is not taken within the stipulated time, it will be open to the petitioners to ply their vehicles upto the old bus stand during day time as
well as night time as per their permit condition. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.