R SAMIAPPAN PROPRIETOR MEKALA TRANSPORT TRICHY ETC Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY TIRUCHIRAPPALLI ETC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Prayer: Writ Petitions filed by State Transport Undertakings dismissed. Writ Petitions praying for issue of direction to grant permits, pursuant to the order of the S.T.A.T., filed by the grantees allowed.) 1. These writ petitions can be disposed of on a very short ground. Though the main facts are similar, there may be small differences with regard to one or two cases. But, it is wholly unnecessary to refer to the facts in detail. The prayers in W.P. Nos. 11274 of 1992, 6780 of 1992, 6761 of 1992, 8611 of 1992 and 6478 of 1992 are the same and the challenge is of the grant of permits to various private operators by the Tribunal under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. In so far as one of the cases is concerned, viz., W.P. No. 11274 of 1992, it is stated that the permit has been granted under the provisions of the old Motor Vehicles Act and it will stand on a different footing. With regard to the point that I am going to deal with, there is no difference between that case and other cases.

(2.) W.P. No. 13313 of 1992 and W.P. 6284 of 1992 are for issue of Mandamus filed by the grantees from the Tribunal for enforcing the orders of the Tribunal granting permits in their favour. Since the Regional Transport Authority has not carried out the orders of the Tribunal, they have chosen to file the petitions for issue of Mandamus.

(3.) THIS is the view taken by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 648 of 1972. By its judgment dated 15-11-1979, a Division Bench of this Court held that the particular order in question in that case might be a wrong order in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Charma Transport Corporation v. Kannan Lorry Service AIR 1977 S.C. 1564. But that order having become final, it was not open to the petitioner therein to file applications for reconsideration of the application for renewal which had already been disposed of. The Division Bench pointed out that the concerned authority had jurisdiction to pass the said order and just because it might be a wrong order because of the view expressed by the Supreme Court, it would not be automatically invlaid. The reasoning of the Division Bench would squarely apply to the facts of this case.