R.LAKSHMI NARAYANAN Vs. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the second respondent.

(2.) The appellant herein was a holder of mini-bus permit for the route Manapparai R.V.Mahal to Veerakovilpatti. It was stage carriage permit. It was valid for a period of five years from 13/12/2001 to 12/12/2006. The appellant submitted his application for renewal on 2/11/2006. It came to be rejected on 3/6/2008. The appellant thereupon filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dtd. 5/11/2009 remanded the matter to the file of the Regional Transport Authority. Questioning the same, the appellant filed W.P.(MD)No.9332 of 2010. The Writ Court vide order dtd. 4/8/2010 declined to interfere with the order of remand made by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. It directed the Regional Transport Authority to pass order on the appellant's application for renewal and also consider his request for replacement of the vehicle. The Regional Transport Authority did not pass any order on the appellant's applications one for renewal and the other for replacement of the vehicle. The appellant therefore filed W.P.(MD)No.26708 of 2019 for issuing a Writ of Mandamus to direct Regional Transport Authority, Trichy to dispose of his applications. The writ petition was disposed of on 28/1/2020. Pursuant to the direction given by this Court, the Regional Transport Authority took up the matter and once again rejected the appellant's requests vide order dtd. 28/2/2020. Challenging the same, the appellant filed M.V. Appeal No.46 of 2020 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's appeal vide order dtd. 16/8/2021. Questioning the same, the appellant W.P.(MD)No.20145 of 2021. The learned Single Judge vide order dtd. 15/11/2022 dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the same, this writ appeal has been filed and it has been listed for admission only today ie., 30/6/2025.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel on either side, we are of the view of that the order of learned Single Judge has to be necessarily confirmed. This is for more than one reason. Admittedly, the appellant had not been an operator for the last 19 years. It is true that Sec. 81(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 stipulates some grounds on which the Regional Transport Authority or State Transport Authority may reject an application for renewal. But those grounds cannot be considered as exhaustive. In our view, this statutory provision must be read along with a few other provisions such as, Sec. 83 and 86(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and also Rule 172(6) and 202 of Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules. The said provisions are as follows:-