A CHINNASAMY Vs. SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY TRICHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ appeal is filed against the order dated 7. 3. 2003 passed by the learned single Judge in W. P. No. 21349 of 1994.

(2.) THE point for consideration in this writ appeal is, whether the renewal application made by the appellant herein under Section 58 (2)of the repealed Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, (hereinafter referred to as "the old Act") with a delay of 27 days can be directed to be considered under section 81 of the new Act i. e. , Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the new Act") at this point of time?.

(3.) LEARNED Senior Counsel for the appellant further submits that yet another order was passed by this Court on 26. 9. 2001 in w. P. No. 14014 of 1995 to the same effect. Another order also has been passed on the same lines in W. P. NO. 18516 of 1990 dated 5. 11. 1998. However, the Tribunal has non-suited the petitioner for the said relief on technicalities and that was re-affirmed by the learned single Judge in the impugned order. He also relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of TMT. SUGANTHI, proprietor, VEERAPPA TRANSPORT, TINDIVANAM VS. M. PALANIVELU AND ANOTHER reported in 2006 WRIT LAW REPORTER 858 to support his contention.