M DURAISWAMY Vs. MURUGAN BUS SERVICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the holder of a stage carriage,, permit in respect of a motor vehicle bearing No.TDL-7755 plying on the town service route No. 1.A from Erode Railway Station to Tiruchengode via P. S. Park, Ex-Clock Tower, Sathy Road, Bus Stand, K. N. K. Road, Pallipalayam, S. P. B. Factory, S. P. B. Colony and Thokkavadi. The existing route length is 23.7 Kms. At present the appellant's bus is performing12 single trips between Erode Railway Station and Tiruchengode and 8 single trips between Erode Railway Station and S.P.B. Factory. The total kilometerage per day comes to 358 Kms. The said permit had been issued by the Regional Transport Authority of Periyar District, Erode in the State of Tamil Nadu. He applied to the Regional Transport Authority of the District of Periyar which had issued the permit for its variation involving:

(2.) It may be mentioned here that while Erode Railway Station, P.S. Park and Bus Stand are in Periyar District, Pallipalayam, S.P.B. Factory, S.P.B. Colony and Tiruchengode are in Salem District of Tamil Nadu. The existing permit is, therefore, an inter-regional permit. The entire route between Tiruchengode and Salem in respect of which extension of the permit was sought is also in Salem District. The application for variation made by the appellant was duly notified under section 57(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and representations/objections thereto were invited. Thereafter the Regional Transport Authority heard the appellant and others who had filed objections and representations and passed a resolution on June 1, 1984 rejecting the said application. It held inter alia that the conversion of the town service into a mofussil service and curtailment of 10 trips between Erode Bus Stand and S. P.B. Factory and 2 trips between S.P.B. Factory and Tiruchengode were not in the public interest. It also held that the entire sector in respect of which the extension was sought lay within Salem District, that the said sector was well-served by stage carriage services and that it was not proper for it to grant the extension since the entire route between Tiruchengode and Salem lay within the jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Authority, Salem. On these grounds the Regional Transport Authority of the District of Periyar found that there was no ground for granting the variation prayed for. Aggrieved by the resolution of the Regional Transport Authority of the District of Periyar, the appellant preferred an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'). The Tribunal after hearing the parties allowed the appeal and granted the variation (including the extension) applied for with slight modification. The Tribunal directed that the appellant's bus should perform the following pattern of trips:

(3.) It directed the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority, Periyar District at Erode to fix suitable timings within six weeks from the date of the receipt of the order. The appeal was accordingly disposed of on April 19, 1985. In its proceedings dated 4-10-1985 the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Periyar District, Erode fixed the timings as directed by the Tribunal but since in the meanwhile a stay order had been issued by the High Court in some civil revision petitions and a writ petition filed by some of the objectors, it directed that the timings fixed would be given effect to as and when the order of stay was vacated. The revision petitions and the writ petition filed by some of the objectors against the order of the Tribunal which are referred to above were disposed of by the High Court on December 20, 1985 by allowing them. The High Court held that the Regional Transport Authority, Periyar District at Erode had no jurisdiction to entertain the application for variation since the entire route in respect of which extension was sought lay within the jurisdiction of the Salem Regional Transport Authority and, therefore, the proceedings commenced with the said application were liable to be quashed. On the other contentions raised by the petitioners before it, it expressed no opinion and left them open. Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court the appellant has preferred this appeal by special leave before this Court under Art. 136 of the Constitution.