Labhala Samanthakamani vs The Court of District Munsif and Others

B. Subhashan Reddy, J.—Having heard Mr. M. Ravindranath Reddy, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also Ms. M. Vidyavathi, the learned Counsel for the respondents 3 and 4 at length, I am of the considered view that this writ petition can be disposed of even at this stage and both the learned counsel have agreed that the writ petition itself be disposed of as the arguments have been advanced in extcnso even touching upon the terms of the family arrangement.

One Mr.L. Dharma Saliu was having four pucca stage carriage permits. He died on 21-2-1993 intestate leaving behind him three sons and heirs of a predeceased son namely Dayanidhi. The writ petitioner L. Samanthakamani is the wife of the said Dayanidhi. After the death of Dharma Sahu, under family arrangement dated 15-4-1993, the routes were distributed among the four branches. The branch of Dayanidhi represented by the writ petitioner got the route Ichhapuram to Srikakulam. Pursuant to the family arrangement, respective routes were transferred in favour of the persons named thereto by the Regional Transport Authority concerned. Then they were plying their respective vehicles on the respective routes. Insofar as the route Ichapuram to Srikakulam is concerned, to vehicle bearing Registration No. AAS-3969 which was plying, was sought to be replaced by a new vehicle bearing Registration No. A.P.30/T1888, on the ground that it became old and worn out. This plea for replacement is pending before the Regional Transport Authority. It is pertinent to mention that pucca permit is subsisting upto the year 1976. Pending consideration of replacement, the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority has granted a temporary permit by order dated 29-12-1993 replacing the old vehicle with the new vehicle mentioned above with effect from 1-1-1994 to 30-4-1994. The other two sons of late Dharma Sahu viz., L. Sunder Rao and L. Vishwanadhan - respondents 3 and 4 - have instituted O.S.No. 63 of 1993 on the file of the Court of district Munsif, Ichapuram seeking a decree of perpetual injunction against Shamanthakamani - the petitioner herein - (a) for a permanent injunction restraining the first defendant in the suit (the petitioner herein) from replacing the bus bearing Registration No. AAS-3969 which is plying from Ichapuram to Srikakulam, Known as Natraj Express (by another bus under transport carriage permit (b) restraining the 1st defendant (the petitioner herein) from leasing out the route permit of Ichapuram to Srikakulam to the 2nd defendant or any other person (c) costs of the suit (d) any such other relief as the Hon''ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the suit.

Pending the disposal of the suit, temporary injunction orders were sought for by filing an Interlocutory Application. The injunction sought for is to restrain the writ petitioner from replacing the bus bearing Registration No AAS-3969 which is plying from Inchapuram to Srikakulam known as Natraj Express., by any other bus under the transport carriage permit granted by the 2nd respondent herein and also restraining the petitioner herein from leasing out the route permit of Inchapuram to Srikakulam either to Andhavarapu Kondala Rao - 2nd defendant in the suit - or any other person pendine the disposal of the suit.

By Order dated 22-12-1993, passed in Interlocutory Application No 210 of 1993, the Court below directed the writ petitioner to maintain the status quo ante regarding the route permit and running the bus bearing Registration No. AAS-3969 in between Ichapuram to Srikakulam and back.

This writ petition is filed impugning the orders of Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Srikakulam dated 31-12-1993 cancelling the temporary permit granted on 29-12-1993 basing on the orders of the Court of the District Munsif, Ichhapuram.

It is said that the said Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Srikakulam was impleaded when he was shown the injunction orders he did not take cognizance of the same on the ground that he was not a party to the lis. It is this order which is impugned in this writ petition and Mr. M. Ravindra Nath Reddy the learned Counsel for the writ petitioner, vehemently contends that the suit itself is misconceived and not maintainable in view of express provision contained u/s 94 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act'') which reads as follows:-

"No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any question relating to the grant of a permit under this Act, and no injunction in respect of any action taken or to be taken by the duly constituted authorities under this Act with regard to the grant of a permit shall be entertained by any Civil Court.

Ms. Vidyavathi, the learned Counsel for respondents 3 and 4 vehemently contends that the suit is maintainable as the permit is not questioned and it is based only on family arrangement dated 15-4-1993 and as such suit is not a bar But, as I have seen the contents of the plaint and also the affidavit filed in support of temporary injunction petition, the whole endeavour of the respondents 3 and 4 was only to see that the benefit of the temporary permit dated 29-12-1993, granted in favour of the writ petitioner is not availed of. May be, directly the permit it not questioned, but in effect, the permit granted by the authority is vacated and ultimately it results in annulling the permit which has been granted by the competent authority under the statute. When the statute expressly bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in questioning any permit or action taken by the authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the same. As such, I hold that the entire proceedings in O.S.No. 63 of 1993 on the file of the District Munsif, Ichhapuram abate, as they are not maintainable. It is needless to mention that when the suit abates as being not maintainable, all Interlocutory Applications also stand dismissed and any orders passed in the said Interlocutory Applications also disappear.

Now, inasmuch as I have held that the respondents 3 and 4 were not entitled to invoke the Civil Court''s jurisdiction in view of the specific prohibition contained u/s 94 of the Act. I have to consider as to what is the relief which is available to the respondents 3 and 4 under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act in relation to the plea of replacement sought for by the writ petition.

Inasmuch as the plea for replacement of the vehicle on permanent basis is still pending consideration before the Regional Transport Authority, Srikakulam, the respondents 3 and 4, shall be entitled to file objections, if they choose before the said authority and the said authority shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. But, so long as the temporary permit which is subsisting as on this date, in favour of the writ petitioner, the writ petitioner shall be entitled to ply her vehicle in accordance with the conditions enumerated in the said permit.

I also make it clear that for the relief, other than questioning the permit granted to the writ petitioner and purely arising out of family arrangement in terms of monetary compensation, this order shall not preclude the respondents 3 and 4 from agitating in a common law Court for common law remedy.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.