C SATHISH Vs. V R RAJANGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the Writ Petition in W. P. No. 9792 of 1998, the petitioner challenges the order of the fourth respondent/state Transport appellate Tribunal, Chennai passed in Appeal No. 138/98 dated 15. 6. 1998 confirming the order of the Regional Transport Authority, Dindigul, dated 17. 2. 1998.

(2.) IN the other Writ Petition in W. P. No. 10711 of 1998 the same petitioner is challenging the order of the Regional Transport authority, Dindigul, dated 20. 7. 1998 under which based on the order of the State transport Appellate Tribunal, dated 15. 6. 1998, the impugned order in W. P. No. 9792 of 1998, has permitted the transfer to one V. R. Rajangarn to ply his stage carriage in the permitted route from Madurai to Mangalapatti.

(3.) 2. 1998 suffers from infirmity. He also further contended that the order of the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Dindugal dated 20. 7. 1998 which is impugned in W. P. No. 10711 of 1998 permitting the transferor Rajangam to ply the vehicle, especially in the circumstance that the Writ Petitioner has paid the consideration amount of Rs. 4,00,000 to the said Rajangam which is not denied by the said Rajangam. His further contention is that the transfer effected by rajangam, confirmed by the order of the Regional Transport Authority dated 10. 2. 1978, stands in conformity with the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Special provisions Act, Act 41 of 1992 which, in terms of Section 10, a non-obstante clause validates all the transfer effected between 4. 6. 1979 to 30. 6. 1990 is valid. It is also the case of the petitioner that the validity of the said Act 41 of 1992 has been upheld by this Court and the same has also been ultimately confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, according to him the withdrawal of transfer of permit effected by Rajangam in favour of the Writ petitioner by the Regional Transport Authority by the order dated 17. 2. 1998 and subsequently confirming the same by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal by order dated 9. 7. 1998 are without jurisdiction. It is also his contention that inasmuch as after the transfer of permit in the name of the petitioner, rajangam as early as on 10. 2. 1978 upto 1998, the petitioner has been plying the vehicle in the prescribed route for the past 20 years, by subsequent renewals even after the order of this Court in the C. R. P, and that therefore, the impugned order is to be set aside. 7. Mrs. Radha Gopalan, teamed counsel appearing for the first respondent in W. P. No. 9792 of 1998 and the second respondent in W. P. No. 10711 of 1998 would contend that as per Rule 202 of the Tamil Nadu Motor vehicles Rules, based on the joint application of the petitioner and Rajangam the transfer was allowed on 10. 2. 1978. Subsequently, by virtue of Rule 212 when the withdrawal of consent of transfer was filed especially when this court in c. R. P. No. 758 of 1979 has clearly held that Rajangam was appointed as receiver by the Civil Court and the transfer effected by him without leave of the Court, the transfer should be held to be invalid. Therefore, it is her submission that when the matter is remitted for fresh consideration and the transferrer was not having a valid permit from 16. 12. 1978 the renewal of permit will only be illegal. It is her further contention that by virtue of order in the C. R. P. the joint application filed by a petitioner and Rajangam ought to be rejected by virtue of Rule 212. It is also the contention of the learned counsel that this court while disposing of C. R. P. has set aside the order of the Regional transport Authority dated 10. 2. 1978 under which one of the respondents-Rajangam was permitted to transfer the permit based on which the petitioner makes a claim as a transferee. In such circumstances, the Regional Transport Authority was bound to reject the transfer in the teeth of the order in the C. R. P. Her further contention is that the petitioner who is in possession of the vehicle and is plying the same for the past 20 years would amount to unjust enrichment.