M SELVARAJ Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY TIRUCHIRAPALLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in W.P.No.14615 of 96 challenges the order of the 2nd respondent relating to Revision Petition No.41 of 1995 dated 30.4.96 confirming the order of the first respondent made in R.No.A2/2095/95 dated 4.9.95. THE very same petitioner in W.P.No. 14997 of 98 challenges the order of the first respondent in R.No.2095/A2/95 dated 11.9.98 and also prays for direction to the first respondent to issue temporary permit to operate on the Trichy Town Service route 27-D Court to THEerambalayam to the petitioner with the timings already enjoyed by him before the stoppage of service.

(2.) THE petitioner herein made an application for the grant of a stage carriage permit for the town service route Court to THEerampalayam. THE first respondent herein, by an order dated 4.9.95, rejected the said application on the ground that as per Sections 6 and 7 of the Tamil Nadu Act 41 of 1992, his application was not maintainable and the first respondent cannot grant new permit without the approval of the State Government as required under Section 68(3)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Against the said order, the petitioner filed Revision Petition No.41 of 1995 before the second respondent herein and the second respondent by an order dated 30.4.96 dismissed the revision and confirmed the order passed by the first respondent. Against the said order, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.14615 of 96.

(3.) MR. V.T. Gopalan, learned senior counsel for the petitioner by drawing my attention to Proviso to Section 104 of the-Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, would contend that the impugned order of the first respondent cannot be sustained. He further contended that the first respondent authority has erred in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of temporary permit under the said Proviso when the second respondent Government undertaking has not come forward to provide additional service on the route in que stion. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate as well as learned counsel for the second respondent Transport Corporation would contend that in view of Tamil Nadu Act 41 of 92 and in view of the fact that the "area scheme" which is applicable for the entire revenue district of Tiruchirapalli prohibits the grant of stage carriage permit to private operators except State Transport undertakings, the impugned order of the first respondent cannot be faulted with.