AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.K. Misra, J.—The present Review Application has been filed for reviewing the judgment dated 30.4.2003 in W.P. No. 36675 of 2002,
whereunder the writ petition filed by the present petitioner was dismissed.
Since the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has made submissions in elaborate manner, it is necessary to notice the relevant
facts in some detail.
Pursuant to the notice issued by the Regional Transport Authority for grant of a stage carriage permit on the route Kangayam to Kodumudi to
ply an additional bus, 12 applicants including the petitioner had filed applications. One of the existing operators had filed W.P. No. 5289 of 1994,
wherein an interim order was passed to the effect that the applications may be considered but the final decision should not be implemented till the
disposal of the writ petition. The Regional Transport Authority, hereinafter referred to as ""the RTA"" at that stage, decided to grant permit in favour
of Thirumalai Transport Service. Ultimately, W.P. No. 5289 of 1994 was dismissed with a direction to the Regional Transport Authority to give
effect to the decision dated 9.5.1984. The present petitioner had applied for a copy of the proceedings. The decision of the RTA dated 9.5.1984
had been put on hold and the RTA fixed date on 22.12.1986 for personal hearing. W.P. No. 13710 of 1986 (erroneously typed as W.P. No.
13719 of 1986 in the judgment in the writ petition) was filed by the Thirumalai Transport Service, wherein a direction was issued to the RTA vide
order dated 30.11.1993 to issue permit and after initiation of Contempt Appln. No. 75 of 1994, a temporary permit was issued on 6.5.1994 and
after convening a timing conference, pucca permit was issued on 7.6.1994. The petitioner filed W.A. No. 1048 of 1995 and Cheran Transport
Corporation Limited filed W.A. No. 1049 of 1995 against the order dated 30.11.1993 in W.P. No. 13710 of 1986. Since the certified copy had
not been granted to the present petitioner, he had filed W.P. No. 13688 of 1994 for issuing a direction to the RTA to issue certified copy of the
proceedings relating to grant of permit in favour of Thirumalai Transport Service. By judgment dated 28.6.1996, both the writ appeals were
allowed and it was held that the proceedings of the RTA were nullity.
As a result of such decision, the Stage Carriage Permit, which had been issued in favour of Thirumalai Transport Service stood withdrawn.
W.P. No. 13688 of 1994 filed by the petitioner for grant of certified copy was dismissed with the following observation:
...In the light of the judgment rendered today in W.A. Nos. 1048 and 1049 of 1995 holding that the proceedings of the Regional Transport
Authority in question issuing the permit is a nullity, the prayer made in the writ petition does not survive. The writ petition is accordingly
dismissed....
Thereafter, the present petitioner filed a representation to the RTA to consider and pass orders on the remaining applications but, since the
representation remained unheeded, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 18703 of 1998. The High Court by its order dated 30.11.1998 issued a direction
to the RTA to consider such application. The RTA passed an order to the following effect:
...all the other applications stood rejected. Of course, the orders of the High Court by the single judge were set aside by the High Court in Writ
appeal. But when the Regional Transport Authority announced the grant of permit and when the permit was actually issued to applicant, the
applications of others stood rejected.
There is no question of reconsideration of the balance applications.
The petitioner is, therefore, informed that the Regional Transport Authority has nothing to proceed and to issue any order in the matter.
Such order was communicated to the petitioner by memo dated 23.4.1999. The petitioner filed Appeal No. 311 of 1999, which was disposed of
by the Appellate Authority, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, by order dated 22.4.2002, wherein it was held that by virtue of Section 7 of
Act 41 of 1992, the appeal was liable to abate and accordingly an order of dismissal was passed. Such order of the Appellate Authority was
challenged by the petitioner by filing W.P. No. 36675 of 2002.
The main contention of the petitioner in such writ petition was to the effect that as per the provisions contained in Act 41 of 1992, the existing
operators were protected and, therefore, the conclusion was not tenable. While dealing with the contentions, this Court observed as follows:
So far as the contention of the writ petitioner is concerned, in my opinion the orders passed by the respondents 1 & 2 appear to be legally
correct, though not happily worded. The grant of permit and subsequent issuance of permit in favour of the present intervenor automatically had the
effect of rejection of all other applications, including that of the present petitioner. It is apparent that the present petitioner possibly wanted to file
appeal and since certified copy was not being granted, W.P. No. 13688 of 1994 had been filed. Unfortunately the said writ petition was also
dismissed. The fact remains that the present petitioner did not file any appeal against the deemed refusal of the Regional Transport Authority.
Moreover, while deciding W.A. Nos. 1048 & 1049 of 1995 and quashing the grant of permit in favour of the present intervenor as nullity, no
specific direction had been given by the Division Bench to consider and decide other applications. On the other hand, the observation of the
Division Bench in paragraph 16, which has already been extracted, goes to suggest that in view of the Act 41/1992 nothing further was to be done.
As was observed by the Division Bench, once the protective umbrella of Act 41/1992 was not available, the petitioner would not be entitled to
seek the permit on the route overlapping the nationalised permit. The observation which was made in the context of one of the applicants, in whose
favour permit granted was found nullity, applies with full vigour in respect of others, including the present petitioner. Therefore, the communication
made by the first respondent was valid and proper. The Appellate Authority of course was not technically right in observing that the appeal had
abated. However, this technical inaccuracy in the order passed by the appellate authority would not clothe the petitioner with any right.
The aforesaid judgment is now sought to be reviewed mainly on the ground that in view of the provisions contained in Act 41 of 1992, the
application filed by the petitioner should have been considered and such application had been erroneously rejected.
Even though on the face of it, the contention raised by the petitioner may sound attractive, I do not think there is any scope to review the order
passed earlier. Firstly, it has to be borne in mind that a court seized with a matter of review is not expected to sit as an appellate authority over its
previous decision and only where there is glaring error apparent on the face of record, a Court is expected to review. It cannot convert itself into
an appellate court in order to find out the errors by delving deep into the entire records. The structure of a judicial system is more or less akin to
pyramid. The initial stage - for example, the trial stage is similar to the base of the pyramid where the scope for taking a decision, of course within
the parameters of law, is as broad-based as the base of the pyramid. The higher one goes up in appeals, further appeals and revisions or reviews,
the scope for interference becomes increasingly narrower like the pyramid. The power of review where available can be compared only to the top-
most portion of the pyramid with very limited scope for interference.
Apart from the above limited scope for review, I am afraid the contention raised by the petitioner, even though attractive, has to be rejected for
the simple reason that on an earlier occasion the reasoning given by the Division Bench, while allowing the appeal of the State Transport
Corporation, applied equally to the case of the present petitioner. The Division Bench observed:
...Further, the route in respect of which the permit is granted to the petitioner overlaps the notified route on which the appellant in W.A. No. 1049
of 1995 is operating being the State Transport Corporation. Once a protective umbrella of Section 10 of Tamil Nadu Act 41 of 1992 is not
available, the petitioner will not be entitled to seek the permit on the route overlapping the nationalised permit....
One of the grounds indicated in such judgment is to the effect that the protective umbrella of Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Act 41 of 1992
was not available. Such reasoning is equally applicable to the present petitioner, is also one of the conclusions indicated in the judgment. The
contention of the petitioner, if now accepted, would mean that the protective umbrella of Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Act 41 of 1992 is available
to the petitioner, even though such a contention would militate against the tenor of the observation made by the Division Bench on the earlier
occasion.
Apart from the above, in the judgment under review it was also observed that the grant of permit in favour of Thirumalai Transport Service,
operated as a deemed rejection of all other applications filed by the applicants including the petitioner itself, was an appealable order. It is of
course true that the grievance of the petitioner was to the effect that certified copy of the proceedings had not been issued. His efforts to obtain
certified copy by filing writ petition proved futile when the Division Bench observed that the prayer made in the writ petition filed by the petitioner
for issuance of certified copies did not survive and the writ petition was dismissed. It was for the petitioner to challenge such decision before the
appellate forum and having abandoned such a recourse, the present contention that he was prevented from filing an appeal though understandable
cannot be justified.
For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any scope to review the earlier judgment. The Review Application is accordingly dismissed.