V CHINTHAMANI VELUSAMY Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (JUDGMENT of the Court was delivered by F. M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.)The appellant is aggrieved against the order of the learned Single judge dated 22. 06. 2007 wherein the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition directed the first respondent to dispose of the appellant's representation dated 30. 04. 2007 on merits and in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, after giving due notice to the concerned parties. The prayer of the appellant in the writ petition was for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to forbear respondents 3 to 5 from operating their stage carriage bearing Registration No. TN-45-N-1920 and any other vehicles on the route Mainguard Gate to Perakambi and Mainguard Gate to Thandalai without permits and without time schedule according to Rule 248 of tamil Nadu Motor Vehicle Rules 1989.

(2.) WE heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as mr. R. Singaravelan, learned Standing Counsel for Transport Corporation viz. , R-3 to R-5 and Mr. R. Rajarajan, learned Government Advocate for R-1 and R-2.

(3.) THE main grievance of the appellant is that the routes with reference to which the appellant seeks for issuance of writ are being operated by the appellant by valid grants made in her favour and that respondents 3 to 5 under the guise of temporary permits issued in their favour under Section 88 or section 103 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") or by invoking Section 101 of the Act are interfering with the operation of the appellant's route permits, which causes great prejudice to the appellant. Though the appellant has referred to the operation of vehicle bearing registration No. TN-45-N-1920, according to the appellant, respondents 3 to 5 should be prevented from operating any other vehicle also in the sector in which the appellant's vehicle is being operated.