S M GOVINDASWAMY Vs. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is filed challenging the order of the first respondent State Transport Appellate Tribunal, dated 07.07.2009 passed in I.A.No.17/2009 in Appeal No.53 of 2003. The petitioner who is the Secretary of Makkal Nalam & Membattu Maiyam which is a society registered in the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act formed to create social awareness among the people campaigned in Erode focussing the rights of citizens under the Consumer Protection Act, 1985 has earlier filed W.P.No.12018 of 1996 for a direction to ensure town buses to ply on the routes stipulated in the permit. This Court by an order dated 01.10.2009 has directed the Regional Transport Authority, the second respondent to initiate action under Section 72 of the Motor Vehicles Act and also to constitute an Expert Committee to study the traffic problems and suggest measures to solve the traffic congestion. It is stated that based on the recommendations of the Experts Committee, the second respondent on 14.09.2000 has ordered to avoid traffic congestion that town buses which are plied from Erode Bus-stand to P.S.Park (via) Nachiappan Street and Borough Road and on its return trip from P.S.Park to Bus Stand (via) Ex-clock tower, Nethaji Road and Sathy Road that the section from Sathy Road corner to Ex-clock tower on Nethaji Road be made on one way. The petitioner has objected to such direction since such diversion of the route from Erode Bus Stand to P.S.Park (via) Nachiappa Street and Borough Road would cause more problems to the public and submitted that to divert the course of the route from Erode Bus Stand (via) Ex-clock tower would be more beneficial only to the bus operators but not in the interest of public. As against the order of the second respondent dated 14.09.2000, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the first respondent tribunal and the same is pending for many years namely 10 years and therefore, the petitioner filed I.A.No.17 of 2009 for appointment of Commissioner before the first respondent and the said application came to be rejected by the first respondent by an order, dated 07.07.2009 which is impugned in the writ petition and it is challenged on various grounds that the Expert Committee report was of the year 2000 and the situation has now totally changed and therefore, the present position has to be studied only by a Commissioner and therefore, it is the case of the petitioner that if only the original permit route is insisted to be resorted to, the congestion problem to the public will be avoided and the said order of the tribunal is challenged also on the ground that access to transport is a right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and that cannot be denied by rejection of application filed for the purpose of appointment of a Commissioner.

(2.) It is the contention of Mr.T.Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order of the tribunal has failed to take note of the fact that review has to be necessarily made about the traffic situation from that which was assessed in the year 2000 for which the tribunal is having substantial powers as per the rules and it is also his submission that even the Expert Committee reports are not available so as to decide the issue in a proper manner and in the interest of public.

(3.) On the other hand, it is the contention of Mr. M.Palani, learned counsel for the fourth respondent who is the permit holder that in cases where there is traffic congestion there is a right on the part of the authorities concerned for the purpose of deviation of route as per the Rule 248 and therefore, the order of the second respondent in deviating the route cannot be said to be either invalid. It is also stated that in the Expert Committee the petitioner himself is a member and it is unfortunate for the petitioner to state that the Expert Committee report is not available. It is his further submission that when once the second respondent has passed the order of deviation from route taking note of the entire situation on fact and against which the petitioner has filed an appeal, it is ultimately, the appellate authority who has to decide such appeal filed against the order of the second respondent. By such application for appointment of Commissioner it would take away the right of the tribunal to decide the validity or otherwise of the impugned order of the second respondent. It is his submission that by appointing Advocate Commissioner the entire facts and circumstances of the case will be altered which cannot be permitted and therefore, according to him, the order of the tribunal is perfectly valid. It is also his submission that the order of the second respondent is to be tested by the tribunal and in such circumstances, the subsequent events are of not relevance. He would also rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh D.Darbar and others Vs. Narasingrao Krishnaji Kulkarni and others reported in 2003 (7) SCC 219. It his submission that when once the variation route order has been issued, the same is under Section 72 of the Motor Vehicles Act by which vested right accrued to the permit holder and that cannot be taken away by making interim application and he would also rely upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rameshwar and others Vs. Jot Ram and others reported AIR 1976 SC 49.