N PALANIAPPAN Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayers in all these writ petitions are one and the same, viz., for a direction to the respondent to dispose of the applications of the petitioners for the grant of two contract carriage permits dated 13.11.1992.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners contends that the applications submitted by the petitioners to the respondent had been returned on the ground that the order of this court passed by Srinivasan, J., in W.P.No.17779 of 1992 on 19.11.92 will apply to the petitioner therein alone. According to the learned counsel the respondent has not applied its mind and it ought to have passed orders on merits as held by Srinivasan, J. in the application submitted by the petitioners.

(3.) AFTER going through the endorsement of return made by the respondent and on going through the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, I am of the view that the respondent has understood the implication of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.17779 of 1992, wherein Srinivasan, J. has held that the Regional Transport Authority" is the proper authority to grant permit in such cases. Then a learned Judge of this Court has laid down a principle in law, it is applicable to cases of similar nature under the Motor Vehicles Act. Hence I am of the view that the respondent has to take up the applications on file and dispose them of on merits and according to law within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petitions are allowed. No costs. 5.. It is very unfortunate that the Regional Transport Authority is ignorant of the implication of court's order wherein the learned single Judge of this Court has laid down a proposition on question of law in explicit terms as to who is the proper authority in granting permits. As a public authority, the respondent is expected to have understood the provision of law and the implication of the order of the learned single Judge. If he has any doubt he should have asked the Law Officers of the State and to return the said applications with such endorsement on such ground is bordering on contempt. It is expected of the respondent, atleast in future he will be more careful when construing an order of this Court, especially when it is given on a question of law.