R VENKATA VARADA REDDIAR Vs. STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE the issue raised in all these matters is one and the same, they are being disposed of by the following common Judgment.

(2.) A) One R. Venkata Varada Reddiar, petitioner in W. P. No. 17959 of 2001, aggrieved by the Common Order of the learned single Judge, dated 20. 02. 2002, rejecting his request to quash the regular permits issued in favour of the Pondicherry Tourism and Transport Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'ptdc'), has filed Writ Appeal No. 429 of 2002. b) Questioning the very same order of the learned single Judge, one M. Husman, petitioner in W. P. No. 18401 of 2001, has filed W. A. No. 476 of 2002. c) Aggrieved by the order of the State Transport Authority, Pondicherry, dated 24. 08. 2001, granting 2 Interstate Permits in favour of PTDC, one V. Vijayasekaran, Proprietor of M/s. Sri Raman Roadways, Pondicherry, has filed W. P. Nos. 8146 and 8147 of 2002.

(3.) FOR convenience, we shall refer the case of R. Venkata Varada Reddiar-petitioner in W. P. No. 17959 of 2001. According to him, he is a stage carriage operator, operating three route buses and one spare bus. The permits have been issued by first respondent/the State Transport Authority, Pondicherry. The permits are included in the Interstate Agreement, entered into between the State of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry, published in the gazette dated 19. 04. 1985. The first respondent granted two regular stage carriage permits as pucca permits in favour of the 2nd respondent/ptdc, by proceeding dated 24. 08. 2001. The 2nd respondent was directed to obtain counter-signature from the State Transport Authority, Chennai, for the portion lying in Tamil Nadu and also to operate on Double Point Tax. After obtaining the counter-signature from the State Transport Authority, Chennai, the 2nd respondent produced the vehicles before the first respondent and consequently, the State Transport Authority, Pondicherry, issued necessary permit in respect of two vehicles on tentative timings by proceedings dated 11. 09. 2001. The petitioner, being an Operator, covering the entire route now being operated by the 2nd respondent, aggrieved against the grant of permit in favour of the second respondent and also by fixing the tentative timings for the operation by the second respondent, challenged the orders of R-1 and R-3, dated 24. 08. 2001 and 11. 09. 2001 respectively on the ground that they are illegal, contrary to the provisions of the Act and also against the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ashwani Kumar vs. Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner (1999 (8) SCC 364 ).