K.VAIAPURI Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 22 February 2010 in Motor Vehicle Appeal No.154 of 2009 on the file of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Chennai remanding the matter to the Regional Transport Authority, Namakkal to consider the variation application afresh without indicating the legal effect of deletion of Explanation to Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Rules, 1995.

(2.) THE petitioner is the owner of stage carriage bearing No. TN 28 P 3636 plying on the route Karur to Karavalli. The petitioner submitted an application before the Regional Transport Authority at Namakkal on 2 August 1995 for variation of permit conditions. The petitioner wanted grant of two additional singles between Namakkal and Karur (via) Velur on the direct route with change of night halt from Namakkal to Karur so as to ply on the said route. The application was considered by the Regional Transport Authority, Namakkal. The Authority was of the view that the Explanation added to Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") was deleted as per Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.758 (Home (Trpt.III) Dept. dated 25 May 1996 and as such there was no provision was available in the existing modified approved scheme to grant variation of permit.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance on the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Rules 1995, contended that the Explanation in question was added only by way of a clarification and the deletion of the said Explanation would not take away the right of the statutory authority to consider the application for variation. The learned counsel also contended that the Regional Transport Authority committed a jurisdictional error in rejecting the application solely on the ground that the deletion to Explanation 4 resulted in taking away the jurisdiction of the State Transport Authority to take up the application for variation. The learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hardev Motor Transport v. State of M.P (2006) 8 SCC 613). According to the learned counsel, the remand of the matter to the Regional Transport Authority would not serve any purpose unless the legal position is clarified.