R. BALAKRISHNAN Vs. S. PAVADAISAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein was an applicant for the grant of a stage carriage permit for a new short route, Porayar to Sirkazhi. The Regional Transport Authority granted the permit to the petitioner herein on the ground that he has secured higher marks than the respondent herein. When the matter was taken on appeal by the respondent herein before the Tribunal, the Tribunal set aside the grant made by the Regional Transport Authority in favour of the petitioner and granted the permit to the respondent. Aggrieved against the order of the Tribunal, the petitioner has come to this Court.

(2.) BEFORE the Regional Transport Authority, the respondent claimed to be a permanent resident of Sirkazhi which residence entitled him to get two marks. The Regional Transport Authority was not, however, inclined to accept the respondent's case that he is a permanent resident of Sirkazhi. Relying on the report made by the Motor Vehicles Inspector on his personal verification, the Regional Transport Authority held that the respondent has not been proved to be a permanent resident of Sirkazhi and that he has been making a false claim that he is having residence at Sirkazhi. Though a certificate of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 17th March, 1972 to the effect that the respondent is residing at Sirkazhi for the past nine months had been produced, the Regional Transport Authority did not attach any significance to that certificate, but proceeded to hold that the respondent having given different places of residence at different times, it is not desirable to grant him the permit on the route in question. In that view, the Regional Transport Authority did not award any marks under the head " Residence ". The result was, the respondent got lesser marks than the petitioner, and, therefore, he was not granted the permit.

(3.) IN this revision petition, the learned Counsel for the petitioner challenges the validity and the correctness of the order of the Tribunal. As will be clear from the facts set out above, the tilting factor in the matter of grant of permit is the factum of residence. It is to be seen whether the respondent has got a permanent residence at Sirkazhi and as such entitled to two marks as has seen awarded by the Tribunal. It is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that if the respondent is taken to have a permanent residence at Sirkazhi, he will be entitled to two marks awarded by the Tribunal, resulting in the grant being made in his favour. Therefore, the main controversy between the parties before me is as to whether the respondent has a permanent residence at Sirkazhi. As already pointed out, the Regional Transport Authority mainly relied on the report of the Motor Vehicles Inspector, who had stated that the respondent is not residing at Sirkazhi. A perusal of the order of the Regional Transport Authority indicates that it has not come to any positive conclusion or given any definite finding on the question of the respondent's residence. It gives a halting finding based on the report of the Motor Vehicles Inspector, but merely stated that the respondent "seems" to be misrepresenting about the residential qualification, and that the respondent "seems" to be a permanent resident of South Arcot District. It omitted to consider the evidentiary value of the certificate of residence issued by the , Revenue Divisional Officer. The Tribunal has held that the Regional Transport Authority is not justified in ignoring the certificate and proceeding to decide the issue as to residence without reference to the same. Relying on the proviso to Sub -rule (3) (A) of Rule I55 -A of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940, the Tribunal held that the certificate of residence issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer is conclusive on the question of residence, and once such a certificate is produced, the authorities cannot embark on an enquiry on the question of residence.