AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Venkatasawmi, J.—These two Civil Revision Petitions are preferred against a common order of the Tribunal in Appeal Nos. 146 and 322
of 1983, dated 3-1-1984. Brief facts are the following :-- The respondent, who is common in both the cases applied to the Regional Transport
Authority, Periyar District at Erode for variation of conditions of permit involving curtailment of the sector from Umareddiyur pirivu to Kolathur
(viz.,) Guruvarediyur and Kannamoochi; extension of the route from Mettur to Salem (via.) Mecheri and Omalur ; and change of night halt from
Mettur to Salem. The Regional Transport Authority, after complying with the formalities, granted the extension of the route from Mettur to Salem
Five Roads. However, the Authority did not grant extension for a portion of the route from Salem Five Roads to Salem. So far as the curtailment is
concerned, the Regional Transport Authority declined to entertain the same. Against the order of Regional Transport Authority, two appeals were
filed, one by the respondent herein, so far as it did not get the curtailment and the extension prayed for up to Salem, and the other by the petitioner
herein against the grant of extension. The Tribunal considered both the appeals by a common order, and in its detailed order, for well-considered
reasons, the Tribunal, reversing the order of the Regional Transport Authority, refusing to grant curtailment, granted the same, and so far as the
extension is concerned, the Tribunal also reversed the order of the Regional Transport Authority and granted the same. Consequently, he allowed
the appeal preferred by the respondent herein and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner herein, confirming the extension. It is under these
circumstances, these two Civil Revision Petitions are filed by the petitioner.
Apart from the fact that there are no grounds to interfere under S. 64-B-B of the Motor Vehicles Act, read with S. 115 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, it is brought to the notice of the Court that pending disposal of the Revision Petition, further variation was applied for and obtained by
the respondent, and the respondent is running the stage carriage on the basis of the subsequent variation. Learned counsel appearing for the
respondent submitted that having regard to the fact that the respondent was running on the extended route for about eight years and in view of the
fact of that the further variation granted by the Regional Transport Authority was not challenged, such pattern of facilities available to the public
should not be disturbed. In support of this, he placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in M. Chinnaswamy v. M/s Dhandayuthapani
Roadways (P) Ltd. AIR 1977 C.S. 2079. I find force in the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent. In fact, I have applied this ratio of
the Supreme Court in several Civil Revision petitions arising under similar circumstances. Accordingly, these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed.
No costs.