V VEDAGIRI PROP VEDACHALAM TRANSPORTS THIRUMAZHI CHENGALPATTU Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR PATTUKOTTAI ALAGIRI TRANSPORT CORPORATION VELLORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition coming on for orders as to admission on this day upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and the counter affidavit filed herein and upon hearing the argument of Mr. V.P. Roman for Mrs. Jayanthi Natarajan, advocate for the petitioner, and of the Advocate-General for Mr. R. Balasubramanian, advocate for the 1st respondent, and of the Additional Government Pleader for the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 herein, the Court made the following Order :- The prayer in the writ petition is as follows :

(2.) The petitioner herein is a stage carriage operator, operating a stage carriage on the route Madras to Pulicat. It seems there was a draft scheme of nationalisation in respect of the route Madras to Pulicat and it was formulated and published in the Gazette dated 29-1-1968. In response to the same, the petitioner alone filed his representations under S.68D(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The said scheme was approved by the Government under S.68(D)(2) of the Act, As against the Scheme, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 1526 of 1974 before this Court, and by order dated 11-11-1977, the writ petition was allowed. Thereafter the petitioner herein had also filed certain additional objections, and the draft scheme was taken up for hearing under S. 68D(2) by the Government on 25-7-1978. Both the petitioner and the respondent were present along with their counsel. After hearing the counsel on both sides, the objections were overruled and the scheme was approved in G.O. Ms. No, 1584 Home dated 25-6-1979. As against the approval of the Scheme, the petitioner herein had filed W.P No. 2987 of 1979 before this Court and by order dated 25-2-1982 the writ petition was allowed by a single Judge of this Court, holding that there has not been a proper consideration of the objections of the petitioner. Against this order, the first respondent herein filed a Writ Appeal No. 574 of 1982 along with an application for stay of the operation of the judgment of the learned single Judge. It Seems the. Division Bench, after hearing both sides had permitted the writ petitioner to ply his vehicle along with vehicle of the first respondent Corporation pending disposal of the writ appeal. A Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 2-1-1990 reversed the order of the single Judge and the validity of the scheme approved had been upheld. The Division Bench of this Court followed the decision of the Supreme Court in C.M.P.,Co-op. Societies v. State. of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1967 SC. 1815). Since the writ appeal had been disposed of the orders passed in the interlocutory application would come to an end. It is stated that in the meantime the petitioner was running his vehicle. On 5-12-1989, the permit holder has applied for the grant of temporary permit for a further period of three months from 1-1-1990 to 31-3-1990 to ply his bus on the route Madras (Mint) to Pulicat. The temporary permit was lastly granted on 17-12-1989. The said temporary permit issued was for the period 1-1-1990 to 31-3-1990 to ply on the route Madras (Mint) to Pulicat or till the disposal of C.M.P. No.11863/82 in W.A. No. 574 of 1982 whichever is earlier. Once the writ appeal has been disposed of against the petitioner herein, the impugned order came to be passed and against this the petitioner came up before this Court with the prayer stated supra.

(3.) It is alleged in the affidavit that the impugned order has been passed by unseemly haste, that the impugned order is violative of the principles of natural justice. It is further alleged by the petitioner that the third respondent has acted by unseemly haste and with mala fides. It is also alleged since the petitioner herein is associated with Congress(I) party the ruling party in the State, has victimised him. It is further stated that before cancelling the temporary permit, the third respondent ought to have given an opportunity to him, and that the failure of giving an opportunity is violative of principles of natural justice.