A.PAULRAJ Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY DHARMAPURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions have been filed by one Thiru A.Paulraj challenging the orders passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Chennai (for brevity "STAT"?) dated 28.03.2016, in M.V.Appeal Nos.196 and 197 of 2015. The appeals have been dismissed confirming the orders dated 25.08.2015, passed by the Regional Transport Authority (for brevity "the RTA"?), Dharmapuri, the 1st respondent, who rejected the petitioner's applications for grant of stage carriage minibus permits. One of the major reasons for rejection of the applications is on the ground that the petitioner is a trafficker in bus permits. There are other reasons as well which this Court will consider in the discussions that will follow.

(2.) Mr.ARL.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.S.Govindraman, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is not a trafficker in permits, because the two minibus permits, which were granted in the year 2000 to the petitioner were surrendered by him in the year 2001 and subsequently, in the year 2001, he applied for three minibus permits, which were granted and he had renewed the three minibus permits twice once during 2006 and subsequently in 2011 and out of the three permits, two permits were transferred in the year 2012 to the 5th respondent and in the year 2014, one minibus permit was transferred to the 6th respondent along with one spare bus permit.

(3.) Further, it is submitted that the applications filed by the petitioner in 2006 for grant of two minibus permits were rejected and those orders were put to challenge before the STAT in Appeal Nos.267 and 268 of 2006, which were allowed by common order dated 03.07.2007, and the matter was remanded to the RTA for fresh consideration. However, the order of remand was not complied with. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to move this Court by filing writ petitions in W.P.Nos.4745 and 4746 of 2014, which were disposed of by order dated 11.08.2014 and only thereafter, the RTA had taken up the applications, which were rejected by order dated 25.08.2015 and challenging the same, the petitioner had filed appeals before the STAT, which have been rejected by the impugned orders dated 28.03.2016. Therefore, it is submitted that the facts would clearly show that the petitioner is not a trafficker in permits.