T S SAMBANDAM Vs. STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY CHEPAUK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in this writ petition is for the issuance of a writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the second respondent made in R.P.No.24 of 2006 dated 01.08.2006 to quash the same and to direct the first respondent to grant renewal in favour of the petitioner's stage carriage entitled to ply on the interstate route Karvettinagar to Thiruthani for 6 singles with the timing that existed on the date of interstate agreement in accordance with terms of interstate agreement published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette under G.O.Ms.No.1000 dated 3.6.1975.

(2.) THE petitioner has precisely put in issue the order of remand passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. THE limited facts, which are necessary for the disposal of this writ petition is as follows: THE petitioner is an inter state Stage carriage operator operating his stage carriage on the inter state route Karvettinagar to Arakonam and following the trip attendance of four singles from Arakonam to Karvettinagar and two singles from Arakonam to Nagari. THE petitioner was originally granted permit to operate the same in the year 1968. In the year 1975, an agreement has been reached between the Government of Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu for plying of vehicles and the petitioner's route was included in the said agreement. Under the said agreement, the petitioner was entitled to operate on the inter-state route Karvettinagar to Thiruthani and the number of singles permitted therein was six singles on either route. In the year 1980, the petitioner made an application for variation before the respondent involving extension of the route from Thiruthani to Arakonam and reduction of two singles between Nagari and Karvettinagar. This was ordered by the respondent and thus the petitioner was plying the bus between Karvettinagar to Arakkonam four singles and Arakonam to Nagari two singles. THE said permit was expired on 2.4.2006. THErefore, the petitioner made an application for renewal of permit before the first respondent. In the mean time, the Supreme Court has enunciated the law in respect of inter state permit in the case of Ashwani Kumar and another vs. Regional State Transport Authority, Bikaner and another reported in 1999 (8) SCC 364 wherein the Supreme Court has categorically held "THE existence of an inter-State route is a condition precedent for exercise of the power under Section 88 (1). An inter-State route under the Scheme of the Act has to be reciprocal and cannot be unilaterally created by one State or an authority in the State. THE State Governments concerned are supposed to deliberate and decide the routes to be opened as inter State routes by determining the number of trips each route was to have and prescribe other conditions for smooth functioning of the Act to achieve its objective which is claimed to be a social welfare legislation" And thereby the Supreme Court has authoritatively held that State to State cannot vary the terms of the permit unilaterally deviating the inter state agreement. On that basis of the Supreme Court judgment, the first respondent considered the renewal application and restored the original position as contained in the inter-state agreement. However, he curtailed the number of trips. Aggrieved by that, he filed an appeal before the Tribunal. THE Tribunal by its order dated 1.8.2006, after hearing the party in elaborate fashion and after considering the Supreme Court decision reported in (1999) 8 SCC 364, Ashwani Kumar's case has held in para 17 of the order to that effect that "THE inter state agreement is the basis for inter-state permit under the amended Act of 1988. As a matter of fact, as pointed out in the very same judgment there is one category of permit for which certain provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, are not made applicable. It is curious to note how the authority grants variation of route from 1980 to cover certain area or distance which are not taken into the fold of inter state agreement. THE endeavour made by the learned counsel for reconsideration of the Ashwani Kumar's case has ended in futility as per the judgment reported in (2004) 11 SCC 207 in the case of A.Venkatakrishnan vs State Transport Authority Kerala. But, in the order, G.O.1000 of 1975 and Ashwani Kumar's cases are referred and allowed the application but not stated specifically about the curtailment of two singles in the original route nor it is clear that the varied portions have been chopped off." On that ground by allowing the appeal, the Appellate Authority remanded the matter back to the State Transport Authority for disposal in accordance with law, which indicate that the curtailment of route is not proper nor passed an order in accordance with law as laid down by the Supreme Court. That order is canvassed in this writ petition on the sole ground that the appeal is in continuation of the original proceedings of the State Transport Authority and when the papers are very much available with the Authorities, the Authorities could have rectified the mistake by itself instead of remanding back the matter.

(3.) WITH this observation, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.