ERODE DISTRICT BUS OWNERS Vs. TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, which is an Association of the Bus Owners, has filed W.P.No.5774 of 2003 seeking to issue Writ of Mandamus forbearing the second respondent from approving any set of timings submitted by the third respondent, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation in respect of their vehicles for which the permit is issued under Section 103 of the Motor Vehicles Act based upon the approved scheme in respect of Revenue District of Erode. In the connected W.P.No.6320 of 2003, the prayer is to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the letter dated 18.02.2003 issued by the first respondent, the State Government to the second respondent and to direct the third respondent, the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Erode District to implement the permits issued in favour of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, the fourth respondent after conducting the timing conference in accordance with Rule 248 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules.

(2.) The Government of Tamilnadu has formulated area schemes for every district including Erode. The existing operators have been permitted to operate on the approved scheme routes. As a result of such policy, the private operators operate in all the routes simultaneously with Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation. It is the contention of the petitioner that before grant of any permit to Tamil Nadu State undertaking to operate their buses, the procedure contemplated in Rule 248 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') has to be followed. This rule is framed in exercise of power under Section 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The impugned clarification has been issued by the Government stating that while issuing permits to State undertaking it is permissible to fix timings in respect of Corporation vehicles without taking resort to Rule 248. The validity of such clarification is being challenged. It has been submitted that while considering the question of timings, the procedure contemplated under Rule 248 is to be followed and the sector private operators should be given opportunity of hearing.

(3.) The above submission made on behalf of the petitioner has been resisted by the respondents. It is contended on behalf of the respondents that in view of the provisions contained in Section 103 of the Act and in view of overriding provision contained in Section 98, Chapter VI of the Act has to be given precedence and therefore, there is no necessity to convene any timing conference as contemplated under Rule 248 while issuing permits to State undertaking vehicles.