P KUMARESAN Vs. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all these writ petitions, the subject matter is one and the same, hence, they are disposed of by this common order.

(2.) THE third respondent in all the above writ petitions have submitted their respective application before the second respondent seeking five seater auto rickshaw permits which were returned by the second respondent on 13. 12. 2001, however, the same was received by them only on 15. 12. 2001, whereas, on 13. 12. 2001, the petitioners in the above writ petitions have submitted their respective application seeking five seater auto permits, which were considered and proceedings granting permit were issued to them on the same day. In the meantime, the third respondents herein have re-presented their respective application on 24. 12. 2001 and on 26. 12. 2001, the second respondent passed an order stating that as per the Government Order, the ceiling fixed for granting permits for each District was 50 and the said quota in respect of Erode District where the third respondent and the petitioners applied for permit was already over, hence, there is no vacancy at present and advised them to apply afresh in future when it is called for. Aggrieved by the said order, the third respondent herein have filed their respective appeal in Appeal Nos. 90 to 93 of 2002 and challenging the grant filed respective revision in RP Nos. 14 to 17 of 2002 before the State Appellate Transport Tribunal/first respondent herein. After hearing both sides and after consideration of the available materials, the Tribunal, by common order dated 28. 02. 2005 allowed the appeals as well as revisions filed by the respective third respondent herein and remanded the matter to the second respondent for fresh consideration. While remanding the matter, the Tribunal also set aside the permits granted in favour of the respective writ petitioners herein, hence, the present writ petitions are filed challenging the order of setting aside the grant of permits as well as the order of remand passed by the Tribunal.

(3.) MR. Umapathy, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners submit that when the respective third respondent herein has alleged malafide, they should have impleaded the authority in personal capacity, but they failed to do so; that the malafide alleged also not proved; that the Tribunal came to an erroneous conclusion by applying Rule 166 of Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicle Rules, which is applicable only when the application is rejected, whereas, in this case, the applications submitted by the respective third respondent were just returned for certain compliance; that the respective third respondents herein have failed to enclose the requisite certificates namely Transport trade experience certificates as well as driving licence along with their applications, hence the same were returned; that the applications submitted by the writ petitioners were considered by the second respondent on merits and thereafter the proceedings were issued on 13. 12. 2001 granting permit to them; that the petitioners also invested money to purchase the vehicle and plying the same; that the Tribunal, without considering the above said facts has erroneously passed the orders impugned in these writ petitions and prayed for setting aside the same.