K VELUSAMY Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who is a Transport Operator, has filed the present writ petition, seeking to challenge an order of the second respondent State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, dated 11.9.2009 made in M.V.RP.No.62 of 2005 and seeks to set aside the same.

(2.) IN the writ petition, this court ordered notice to the respondents and granted an interim stay on 27.10.2009. The court found prima facie that the Tribunal did not assign any valid reason and merely incorporated the arguments of the contesting respondents. The fourth respondent, i.e. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation filed a vacate stay application in M.P.(MD)No.3 of 2009 together with supporting counter affidavit, dated 18.11.2009. The third respondent had also filed a vacate stay application in M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2009 together with a counter affidavit, dated 27.11.2009 and also supporting documents. In view of those two applications, the main writ petition itself was taken up for final disposal.

(3.) THE ground taken by the petitioner was that the report of the Motor Vehilcle Inspector, his sketch and break up figures have shown that the served sector was only 3.8 kms., which is less than 4 Kms. Further, the third respondent is a Town bus operator operating from Tirunelveli to Thiruvengadam, via Kayathar, Kuruvikulam etc. on the main route. He is no way connected with the mini bus route of the petitioner. The fourth respondent Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation also plying in a different route and there is no connection with the case of the petitioner. The tribunal without examining these facts, by an ipse dixi order set aside the permission given and further directed for a joint inspection. The tribunal recorded that a perusal of page No.15 in the file showed that the served sector was 4 Kms. and the unserved sector was 12 Kms. The Transport Corporation had filed an objection which showed the served sector was 12 Kms. and hence it objected to the grant of mini bus permit. Without taking note of the objections made by the fourth respondent and the sketch, permission was granted and the order came to be passed. The documents produced by the fourth respondent showed that the served sector exceeds 4 Kms.