SUGANTHI Vs. M PALANIVELU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ appeal raises the following two points: -

(2.) THE facts that give rise to the above points may briefly be stated as follows:- THE appellant was a stage carriage permit holder for the bus MSQ 7297 to ply on the route Maduranthakam to Keelputhupattu (via) Acharapakkam, Thozhuppadu, Ongur, Tindivanam, Marukkeri, Brammadesam, Alathur Cross Road and Marakkanam. THE said permit was granted under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the "old Act"). THE appellant applied to the Secretary, State Transport Authority on 9.6.84 for extension of the route from Keelputhupattu to Gorimedu upto Tamil Nadu border (via) Kottakuppam and Pondicherry bus stand with revision of timings. Pursuant to the above, the State Transport Authority notified the application under Section 57(3) of the old Act and after considering the representations received, by his proceedings dated 29.10.85, the variation was granted. As the extended route overlapped the scheme route, the timing conference was not held in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pandiyan Roadways Corporation v. M.A.Egappan reported in AIR 1987 SC 958. Subsequently, the Government of Tamil Nadu enacted the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Act, 1992 (Tamil Nadu Act 41/1992) to validate all orders for granting permits or renewal or transfer of such permits or variation specified in a stage carriage permit and for the said purpose, Section 10 was introduced. Under Section 8 of the said Act, the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Rules, 1995 were framed and the same was notified in G.O.Ms.No.718 Home (Transport III) Department dated 18.5.1995. By the framing of the above Rules, the said Act was brought into force. On the ground that the variation granted under the old Act was saved, the appellant filed W.P.No.12929 of 1995 seeking for a direction for implementation of the variation by holding the timing conference and this Court directed the timing conference to be convened. Accordingly, the Secretary, State Transport Authority notified on 28.4.97 fixing the timing conference on 13.6.97.

(3.) POINT No.1: It is not in dispute that the route for which the variation of permit was granted is a scheme route. An application for variation could be made and considered by the Regional Transport Authority in terms of sub-section (8) of Section 57 of the old Act. Though the variation was granted on 29.10.85, the same was not implemented in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pandiyan Roadways Corporation case (supra), wherein the Supreme Court had held that no permit including variation shall be granted in a scheme route. In view of the said judgment, the timing conference was not held and the variation of permit was not given effect to. In the meantime, the old Act was repealed by the enactment of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in terms of Section 217. Though under Section 217(2)(f) "the permits issued under sub-section (1-A) of Section 68-F of the old Act or under the corresponding provisions that were in force were saved", the provision is silent as to the variation of permit. Therefore, the Government, in order to save the permits or variation of permits granted under the old Act, enacted the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Act, 1992, which got the assent of the President on 31.7.92. Section 10 of the said Act relating to variation, reads as under: -