P. GNANASEKARAN Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE the issue involved in these Writ Petitions are one and the same, these Writ Petitions are taken up together and disposed of by a common order.

(2.) THE petitioners in all these Writ Petitions purchased TATA SFC 410 and the same was temporarily registered before the authorities concerned. Thereafter, the said vehicles were taken by the petitioners for building its body and on completion of the same, the petitioner made an application to the respondents for registration of the vehicles in accordance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 and the Rules framed therein. However, it was not registered by the respondents inspite of being informed that the similar vehicles were registered and certificates of registration were also granted to the concerned persons. The petitioners submit that the respondent having accepted that the Transport Commissioner has permitted to register TATA 410 Model vehicle ought not to have returned the application; that similar vehicles are being registered as maxi cabs in all over Tamil Nadu and the said aspect has not been taken into account in the present case on hand. While so, the petitioners sent representations detailing their entire grievances and they also appeared in person before the respondents. But, it did not evoke any response from the respondents. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioners are before this Court to register the vehicle concerned.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents would sail through in his counter affidavit that if the petitioners aggrieved by the order of the Registering Authority, they may prefer an appeal before the Deputy Transport Commissioner concerned under Rule 127 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules 1989. Without availing the appellate remedy, they have filed the present Writ Petitions. Apart from that, in case of TATA SFC 410 model chassis purchased by the Writ Petitioners, the Transport Commissioner Chennai has issued instructions in Circular No.21/2009 in R.No.H3/50434/2009, dated 14.10.2009 model vehicles can be registered for the use of educational institution buses or private service vehicles only by ensuring that maximum number of seats are provided. If the petitioners intend to increase the number of seats in Maxi Cab than the prescribed limit, they have to make necessary application to the Transport Commissioner, Chennai, seeking permission to register the vehicle as Tourist maxi cab as required under Rue 169-A of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicle Rules. But, in the present case, such permission was neither obtained by the dealer nor by the petitioners. That apart, after registering the vehicle, the petitioners have to take out a tourist maxi cab permit as required under Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 with Rule 169 A of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Act,1988. Eligibility of a particular model of vehicle for getting a tourist maxi cab permit, is a condition precedent for registration of that vehicle as a tourist maxi cab. Therefore, the respondents does not have any discretionary powers to register the vehicle as tourist maxi cab without specific permission from the Transport Commissioner. Thus, he prays this Court that these Writ Petitions are liable to be dismissed.