AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Shanmugam, J. 1. The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation is the Petitioner in these writ petitions. Identical prayers are made in reference to the mini bus permits made in favour of the third Respondents in these writ petitions which are as follows:
For the issue of a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the first Respondent from in any manner issuing grant of mini bus permits to the third Respondent in the served route length of the Petitioner Corporation at Nilgiris District without following the prescribed guidelines and regulations in G.O.Ms. No. 1475, Home (Transport-Ill) Department dated 28.10.1998, G.O.Ms. No. 214, Home (Transport - III) Department dated 25.2.2000. G.O.Ms. No. 1134, Home (Transport-III) Department dated 18.10.2000 and in accordance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act 1998 and the rules framed thereunder.
Though these writ petitions can be disposed of with liberty to the Petitioner to move the statutory appeal u/s 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 read with Rule 157 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules in reference to the grievance of the Petitioner on the failure to follow the guidelines regarding the extent of unserved sector, in the light of certain legal questions raised by the counsel for the Petitioner, they are considered below.
According to the Petitioner, they have made representation to the Government to permit them to challenge the validity of G.O.Ms. No. 1134 dated 18.10.2000 which permitted the grant of mini bus permits in the unserved rural areas by private operators for a route length upto 20 kilometres with an overlapping distance of 4 kilometres in the Nilgiris District and pending the same, permits should not be granted, which will cause huge monetary loss to the Corporation which is already sustaining loss. The grants are made on the served sector affecting the revenue earned by the Corporation. According to the Petitioner, the Government Order extending the length of the route of the unserved sector is ultra vires of the earlier Government Order. It was also argued that the grant is made in violation of Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Stage Carriage and Contract Carriages Acquisition Act, 1973 (Act 12 of 1973).
All these points raised by the Petitioner, in my view, are academic since they are covered by the judgments of this Court in reference to the very grant of mini bus permits. The only difference is that the objectors at that time were private operators in the State of Tamil Nadu. The objections were on the basis of existing approved schemes and that the Government Orders enabling the grant of mini bus permits were illegal. Those Government Orders namely G.O.Ms. No. 727 to 747 (TR-Government-III) Department dated 16.5.1997 and G.O.Ms. No. 1475 dated 7.10.1997 were challenged in two batches of writ petitions in W.P. Nos. 12476 etc. of 1998 and W.P. Nos. 19067 of 1999 etc. batch. This Court, by judgments dated 30.1.1999 and 28.7.2000, dismissed all these writ petitions upholding the amendment of the scheme and the Government''s decision to introduce mini buses. The Petitioners have not questioned those two Government Orders. The general order passed in G.O.Ms. No. 547 dated 15.4.1997 setting out the policy to permit the need of the people of the unserved rural areas and G.O.Ms. No. 1334 dated 10.9.1997 dealing specifically with the Nilgiris District in reference to the Acquisition Act were not questioned by the Petitioner. A complaint of the writ Petitioner as seen in the prayer is that permits are granted without following the prescribed guidelines and therefore, the Petitioner cannot go beyond the scope of the writ petitions.
In A.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. P.V. Ramamohan Chowdhary and others, ; Adarsh Travels Bus Service and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others, and C. Kasturi and others, etc. Vs. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority and another etc., . the Supreme Court has upheld the power of the State Government to modify any scheme. In actual working of the scheme, if any defect or hardship is experienced by the public, the same can be removed by appropriate action. The learned Judges of this Court, in the orders referred to above, have taken the view that the State Government is well within their authority in relaxing the exclusive operation within the limited extent with the object of serving rural areas to whom the benefit of nationalisation could not reach. To the same effect is the judgment of another Division Bench of this Court in Cholan Roadways v. S. Sinnaiyan in Writ Petition Nos. 11796 etc. of 1995. The question of the ban under the Acquisition Act will not in any way, prohibit the grant of mini bus permits. In Vijay Kumar Sharma and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others, , the Supreme Court, dealing with similar provisions of the Karnataka Contract Carriage Acquisition Act, held that since the Parliament had enacted the later statute (Motor Vehicles Act, 1988) knowing full well of the existence of the earlier statute (Acquisition Act) and yet did not expressly repeal, it will be presumed that the Parliament felt that there was no need to repeal the said statute. It was held that there is no repugnancy between the provisions of the Karnataka Act and Sections 74 and 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
A reading of the Tamil Nadu Act 12 of 1973 shows that the said Act was to provide for acquisition of stage carriages in the revenue district of Nilgiris. The bar of application for fresh permits u/s 14 says that with a view to facilitate the acquisition of stage carriages or contract carriages, no grants can be made after 14.1.1973. Section 16 enables the grant of temporary permit to operators notwithstanding anything contained in the said Act. In so far as the mini buses are concerned, it is categorically made clear that permits are given to the private operators for operation of mini buses in the unserved rural areas with a condition of limiting of the route length. The Government in G.O.Ms. No. 1334 dated 10.9.1997, has taken the view that the Acquisition Act has been impliedly repealed by the Central Act 59 of 1988. The Supreme Court, says that this liberalised provision in the matter of grant of permits and the ancillary provision in the Acquisition Act to effectuate acquisition does not directly run counter to the 1988 provision. Therefore, according to the Supreme Court, there is no prohibition from the granting of permits under the Central Act. The guidelines have been laid down in G.O.Ms. No. 1475 dated 28.10.1998, and in reference to the length of the route in relation to Nilgiris District, it was modified in G.O.Ms. No. 1134 dated 19.10.2000 providing for the grant of permit upto 20 kilometres with an overlapping distance not exceeding 4 kilometres in the served sector.
I am unable to see how the Petitioner is aggrieved by these Government Orders. Admittedly, the Government has taken a policy decision to provide permits only to such of those areas which are not served and that too, for the benefit of rural people and the overlapping distance has been fixed as not to exceed 4 kilometres in the served routes. The only objection of the Petitioner that the guidelines prescribed in these orders regarding the served sector and the extension of route length is not followed is a matter that can be represented to the Regional Transport Authorities concerned before the grant of these permits. It is expected of the Regional Transport Authorities to follow the guidelines strictly. However, if there is any grievance or dispute regarding the actual extent in the served sector or the route allowed, that is a matter to be factually appreciated by filing statutory appeal in respect of the grants before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal.
Hence, these writ petitions are disposed of, giving liberty to the Petitioner to move the Appellate Tribunal if the are aggrieved by the order of the Regional Transport Authority. No costs. Consequent, W.M.P. Nos. 22106 and 22142 of 2001 are closed.