K RAMASAMY PROP RAMAVILAS BUS SERVICE SALEM Vs. T P THANGARAJ PROP THIRUMURUGAN BUS SERVICE TIRUCHENGODE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE revision petitions are directed against the order passed in Appeal No. 985 of 1986 on the file of State Transport Appellate tribunal Madras, in which the Appellate Tribunal had allowed the appeal reversing the order passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Periyar district at Erode in R. No 68221/b1/85, dated 26. 5. 1986.

(2.) SHORT facts are: The respondents had filed application for variation of the permit conditions in respect of the route Kangeyam to tiruchengode. The respondents were having six singles between Kangeyam and tiruchengode. They wanted variation by having four singles, but having the route extended upto Salem . The revision petitioners had objected to the same. They are objectors Nos. 1, 3, 13and 11 respectively. After hearing the objectors, the Regional Transport authority, Periyar District at Erode had dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents filed appeal in Appeal No. 985 of 1986 before the state Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras . After hearing the appellants and the objectors/the Appellate Tribunal had allowed the appeal, granting variation, as sought for by the appellants, before him and had directed the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority to fix suitable timings. Aggrieved by the judgment the above objectors have come forward these revision petitions.

(3.) IN C. R. P. No. 1437 of 1976, one of the points considered by this Court was above and in the order dated 14. 10. 1976, the learned Judge had referred to an earlier decision given in the case of Sri Rama Vilas Service (P) Ltd. v. Raman and Raman, in which, it was held, "another question that was debated before us was whether Rule 208 of T. N. M. V. Rules confers powers on a transport authority to vary permits or whether it is merely a procedural rule. It seems to us that as Act stand at present, Rule 208 does confer power on a transport Authority to vary all kinds of permits or conditions attached therein. This power is exercised on an application made in writing by the holder of the permit. " After extracting the above, the learned Judge had held as follows: "it follows from the above reasoning that the TRA had the authority under Rule 208 to vary the permit and nothing contained in sec. 48 (3) (xxi) limits its powers in respect of the distance covered the variation in the case. " I am in total agreement with this view. IN view of the above, this submission that variation granted by the appellate court was for more than 24 kms. and hence is not valid cannot be sustained.