ANNA TRANSPORT CORPORAITON LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SALEM Vs. SMT.M.UMA MAHESWARI, PROPRITERIX, SRI RAJESH BUS SERVICE, CHINNAPPA NAICKENPALAYAM, SALEM,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the writ petitions are filed against the common order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras/third respondent herein, they are being disposed of by the following Common Order. Anna Transport Corporation has filed W.P.Nos. 13114 to 13117 of 93 questioning the order of the third respondent in Appeal No. 238 of 92 etc. dated 8 -6 -93, in granting permit in favour of the first respondent. Against the very same order, the private operators/objectors before the third respondent herein filed W.P.Nos. 14651 to 14654 of 93.

(2.) For convenience, I shall refer the case of the Anna Transport Corporation in W.P.No. 13114 of 93. The petitioner -Corporation is a State owned Transport Undertaking within the meaning of Sec. 2(42) of the Motor Vehicles Act, operating a large number of stage carriage services in the entire Salem District and also on the adjoining inter -district and inter -State routes, in the interest of the travelling public. The first respondent, who is a stage carriage operator in the Salem District, has applied for grant of one stage carriage permit, in respect of the route Komarapalayam to Edappadi, under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") before the second respondent -The Regional Transport Authority, Salem at Namakkal. The route falls under the classification of ordinary stage carriage service, as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"). The route applied for, overlaps on the approved scheme, in respect of the route Edappady Bus Stand to Kumarapalayam, published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 22 -6 -90. This scheme was under challenge before this Court in W.P.Nos. 7201 of 90 etc., batch, along with other 249 approved schemes. All the schemes including the schemes relied before the 2nd respondent, were struck down by a Division Bench of this Court, by its Judgment dated 31 -10 -90. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner Corporation along with its other sister transport undertakings, preferred Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court. When the Special Leave Petitions were pending before the Supreme Court, as against the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, quashing the approved schemes, the apex Court, in a case arising from the State of Rajasthan, involving identical question of law, took a contrary view to that of this court and impliedly overruled the said judgment. The authority after taking into account the pendency of the appeal on the file of the Supreme Court as well as part of the grant route applied for, overlaps on the approved scheme route, rejected the application, by its order dated 19 -5 -92. Aggrieved by the said order of the second respondent, the first respondent preferred Appeal No. 238 of 1992 on the file of the third respondent. During the pendency of the appeal on the file of the third respondent, the apex Court set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, made in batch of writ petitions, by its order dated 16 -4 -93 and consequently the schemes are restored and as such during the pendency of the appeal, that there is an approved scheme, in respect of the route Edappadi bus stand to Kumarapalayam, on which the grant route applied for, overlaps and that the overlapping sector on the scheme is in between Kumarapalayam to Annamarkoil. Pending appeal on the file of the third respondent, the State of Tamil Nadu, notified Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Act, popularly known as Tamil Nadu Act 41/1992. As per Sec. 7 of the Act 41 of 1992, "every application for the grant of new permit on a notified route and all appeals, arising therefrom or relating thereto, made or prepared before the date of the publication of this Act, in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette and pending before any Court or with any Officer, authority or Tribunal, on the said date shall stand abate". On the date of the publication of this Act in the Gazette, the appeal filed by the first respondent was pending and further it is an admitted case that the grant route applied for overlaps on the notified route and consequently the appeal filed by the first respondent is hit by Sec. 7 of the Tamil Nadu Act 41/1992 and on the date when the appeal was heard by the third respondent, namely, 8 -6 -93, that there is no appeal pending in the eye of law, as the same stand abated on the date of notification of the Tamil Nadu Act 41/1992. When the appeal was taken up for hearing on 8 -6 -93, the petitioner -Corporation brought to the notice of the Tribunal that as the grant route applied for overlaps on the approved scheme referred to above and the appeal is hit by Sec. 7 of the Tamil Nadu Act 41/92. The third respondent, relying upon item (3) of Schedule II of the scheme, held that the schemes relied upon by the petitioner -Corporation does not affect the grant route applied for by the first respondent, as that being mofussil service, whereas the scheme contemplates town services. On that ground, the third respondent overlooked the objections of the petitioner -Corporation and granted the permit in favour of the first respondent by its proceedings dated 8 -6 -93. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner -Corporation has preferred the present writ petition. Similar averments have been made by the very same Corporation in respect of other routes which overlaps the approved scheme. On the very same grounds, the private operators/objectors also filed the other writ petitions as stated above.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as respondents.