LAWS(MAD)-2002-2-197

M. DURAISWAMI, PROP. SRI SENTHIL RAJA BUS SERVICE Vs. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PERIYAR DISTRICT

Decided On February 05, 2002
M. Duraiswami, Prop. Sri Senthil Raja Bus Service Appellant
V/S
The State Transport Appellate Tribunal And The Regional Transport Authority, Periyar District Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is a Stage Carriage Operator. He had a spare vehicle TDX4041 which was at times being plied on the basis of special permit. The Petitioner had obtained one such temporary permit for the period between 10.12.1990 and 13.12.1990 for taking tourist passengers from Erode to Sendamangalam and then to Guruvayoor, Erimeli, Pambai, Courtallam, Madurai, Palani, Sendamangalam and back. On 13.12.1990, the Motor Vehicles Inspector at Amarampalayam Checkpost issued a vehicle check report stating that the vehicle was found plying through Govindapuram on Pollachi Meeukkarai Road instead of going to Madurai and Palani and a charge memo was issued stating that the vehicle was plying on an unauthorised route. The Petitioner submitted a detailed explanation to the effect that while returning from Sabarimalai due to diesel shortage and unavailability of diesel, the driver of the vehicle was constrained to go through a short -cut route.

(2.) By an order dated 1.1.92, the second Respondent directed the Petitioner to pay a fine of Rs. 300/ - without specifying the period for which the permit was to be suspended. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner filed an Appeal No. 85 of 1992 before the first Respondent, who by an order dated 3.11.1992, remanded the matter to the second Respondent for fresh disposal. After remand, the second Respondent passed an order suspending the permit for a period of 10 days with option to compound at the rate of Rs. 100/ - per day. The only reason that has been given was to the following effect:

(3.) Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Petitioner again preferred Appeal No. 147 of 1993. The Appellate Authority while accepting the contention of the Petitioner to the effect that the Original Authority had not given any reason, observed