THIRU P MANI Vs. SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is an existing stage carriage operator having a bus bearing No.TN 28/Y 3367 plying on the route Athani to Salem (via) Appakudal, Bhavani, Sankari, Mac Donald Choultry with I.S.T. between Salem and Erode (viz.) Sankari and Pallipalayam. One Thiru P.Gopal was also an existing stage carriage operator having a bus bearing No.T.C.W 5329 plying on the route Goli to Kodumudi (via) Kavemdapadi, Perundurai, Arachalur and Sivagiri with I.S.T between Golu and Sankari (via) Kavendapadi, Periyapuliyur, Bhavani and Kumarapalayam. THE said Gopal filed an application for revision of timings to the above stage carriage permit before the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Periyar district. Timing conference was convened by the authority on 15.10.1992. THE petitioner and others appeared before the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority and made their objections. However, the first respondent, by his order dated 19.10.1992, allowed the application of the said Gopal for revision of timings. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal which was also dismissed on 22.8.1994. Questioning the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(2.) PENDING the proceedings, the said P.Gopal transferred the permit in favour of the second respondent Mr.V.P.Selvaraj. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that as per Rule 248 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, a notice containing the existing and proposed schedule of timings should be published so as to enable the intending objectors to make their objections. Factually, in this case, no such existing and proposed schedule of timings were mentioned in the notice. and the petitioner was made aware of the proposed schedule of timings only at the time of the hearing. In the absence of compliance of rules, it is mandatory that the entire proceedings are liable to be set aside.

(3.) OFCOURSE, as per the rule, the Transport Authority either on its own motion or on an application made to it in writing is entitled to fix and approve a schedule of timings for the particular stage carriage or the service of stage carriages by a general or special order. However, before doing so, the transport authority shall give a notice of existing and proposed schedule of timings and the time, date and place at which the subject will be discussed. Such notice shall be affixed on the notice board of the office of the Transport Authority. The affixture of notice containing the existing and proposed schedule of timings is to enable the intending objectors to make their objection as to the revision of timings. Inasmuch as the rule is explicitly clear, the notice so affixed by the transport authority shall contain the existing and the proposed timing schedule, the time, date and place at which the subject will be discussed. Only on compliance of the above, notice so affixed by the transport authority will be considered as proper notice given under Rule 248 of the Rules. Hence the petitioner is entitled to raise a new plea which is based on the provisions of rule 248 of the Rules before the appellate authority or for that matter before this Court.