P SAMIAPPA GOUNDER AND CHERAN TRANSPORT CORPN LTD Vs. THIRUMALAI TRANSPORT SERVICE KALLIMEDU STREET KANGEYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals are preferred against the order dated 30.1 1. 1993 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.13710 of 1986 issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Regional Transport Authority, Periyar District, to issue permit to the petitioner/first respondent within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order either from the Court or on production of the same by the petitioner whichever is earlier. Before, the learned single Judge the Regional Transport Authority, Periyar District was the only respondent. However, on obtaining leave one of the applicants before the Regional Transport Authority, viz., Samiappa Gounder and also the Cheran Transport Corporation Limited have filed these writ appeals respectively against the aforesaid order.

(2.) IT is contended on behalf of the appellants that the stage carriage permit issued to the first respondent in both the appeals is illegal and invalid because, the very order granting permit was not preceded by any proceedings of the Regional Transport Authority in which there were more than one applicants and the granting of the permit to the first respondent resulted in rejection of the applications filed by others, seeking permit on the same route. As such, the order pronounced granting permit without any reason and without any proceeding is invalid, hence, the learned single Judge could not have issued a direction to the second respondent to issue a stage carriage permit pursuant to such order, that the first respondent failed to produce the vehicle as required by Rule 163(B) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules framed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939; therefore, the decision of the Regional Transport Authority granting permit should be deemed to have been revoked; that the permit granted for the route overlapped the notified route on which the appellant in W.A.No.1049 of 1995 is operating, that in the absence of the proceedings, the appellant in W.A.No.1048 of 1995, who could not know the reason, as he was not supplied with any reason, could not avail the remedy of the appeal.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing on8.5.1984 that this Authority should behalf of the appellants also placednot give effect to the decision taken reliance on several decisions in support ofin the meeting only the result is their contention that in the absence of theannounced and no proceedings will proceedings containing reasons forbe issued till the stay is vacated, granting or refusing to grant stage carriage permit, the order, apart from violative of Rule 155-A(6) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, is also a nullity. It is contended that it is one of the basic principles of natural justice that the order must contain reason inasmuch as, the Regional Transport Authority is exercising quasi-judicial function, further the applicant whose application stands rejected must know the reasons for the same.