AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Kanakaraj, J.—The petitioners are stage carriage operators, and In particular, they are operating on the inter-State route Pondichery to
Villupuram via, Ariyur and Kandamangalam. The third respondent is an operator on the inter-State route Pondicherry to Tiruvennainallur, via.
Villaianur. Pakkani Cross road, Kariamanckam, Madagadipet and Valavanur. As per the permit conditions, she has to operate two singles on the
entire route and eight singles between Pondicherry and Villupuram. The third respondent applied for variation of the conditions of the permit,
seeking curtailment of the route from Villianur to Madagadipet and also for deviation of the route from Villianur to Madagadipet, via
Kadamangalam. She sought for this variation in respect of all the singles operated by her, this variation in respect of all the singles operated by her,
thus practically abandoning the original route. The application for variation was taken up for hearing by the first respondent on 24-1-1989. The
petitioners objected to the curtailment and variation. First respondent, by an order, dated 24-1-1989 granted the variation, by permitting
curtailment only in respect of the two singles on the route Pondicherry to Tiruvennainallur, but refused curtailment in respect of the eight singles
from Pondicherry to Villupuram, The third respondent filed an appeal to the second respondent. By an order, dated 10-3-1993, the Tribunal
allowed the appeal and granted the variation in respect of all the singles including the eight singles on the route Pondicherry to Villupuram. In W.P.
21780 of 1993 the petitioner is seeking to quash only the order of the Tribunal, dated 10-3-1993. In W.P. No. 21780 of 1993 the petitioner is
seeking the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct respondents 1 and 2 to prevent the third respondent from continuing to run on the route
Pondicherry to Tiruvannainallur, pursuant to the order of the tribunal, dated 10-3-1993, without getting counter-signature from the Tamil Nadu
Authority and without having a timing conference for the varied route. Counter-affidavit has been filed by the third respondent in respect of both
the writ petitions.
W.P. No. 21790/93 can be disposed of, easily, because of the admitted facts, to which I will make a reference immediately. The main ground
that is taken in this writ petition is that the appeal should have been disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1939. This contention may be well-founded if the appeal was pending on the date when the new Act came into force, viz., 1-7-1989. It is now
admitted by both parties that as against the order of the State Transport Authority, dated 24-1-1989, the appeal was filed on 15-7-1989, after the
new Act came into force. Therefore, it goes without saying that the appeal has to be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the new Act.
If this much is conceded, it cannot be disputed that an application for variation has to be disposed of as if it is an application for a permit, and so
construed, there are no limitations for granting the variation. Consequently, the order of the Tribunal as such cannot be found fault with, because
the order gives good and valid reasons and has taken note of the subsequent permits granted on the subject routes, and the variation granted
cannot be assailed as arbitrary or unreasonable.
The point taken in W.P. No. 21781 of 1993 is much more substantial. A perusal of the order of the Tribunal, dated 10-3-1993, shows that the
following.
In the result, the appeal is allowed and the appellant is entitled to the following pattern of trips as per her variation application, i.e..
Pondicherry to Thiruvannainallur, via, Kandamangalam, Madagadipet and Villupuram.
2 Singles.
Pondicherry to Villupuram, via, Vadamangalam, Thennal, Pangur, Kandamangalam, Thirubuvanai, Madagadipet and Valavanur
8 Singles.
The above variation of the permit will be subject to necessary concurrence from the concerned State Transport Authority of Tamil Nadu.
It is, therefore, clear that the variation was subject to the concurrence of the concerned State Transport Authority of Tamilnadu. Learned counsel
for the petitioner also relies upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in W.A. Nos. 220 and 221/1967, dated 21-9-1967. (M/s. Jayaram
Motor Service, Rajapalayam v. M/s. Aruppukkottai Sri Jaya Vilas Pvt. Ltd.,). In that case, this very question was raised, viz., that were a
Regional Transport Authority is proceeding with the fixation of timings in respect of a sanctioned routed and that extension or variation relates to
the territorial jurisdiction of another Regional Transport Authority, the counter-signature of that latter Authority must be obtained, before convening
the meeting for the timing conference. The Court held that if that pre-requisite is not complied with, the fixation of timings would lack validity. In the
case before me, what seems to have happened is, that that particular officer, who was about to retire, hastily proceeded to grant tentative timings
to the third respondent behind the hack of the petitioner and other existing operators, with effect from 1-12-1993. The particular Officer was
retiring from service on 30-11-1993 and the order fixing timings was made on that day viz.. 30-11-1993. But the contention still remains that such
a timing cannot be valid, without a proper counter-signature from the State Transport Authority of the Tamil Nadu area.
Learned counsel for the petitioner then refers to inter-State agreement between the Slate of Pondicherry and Tamil Nadu, in respect of the
subject route. Referring to clause(1) of the agreement relating to such carriages, it is argued that the two States should maintain a parity of rules in
the ratio of 4 : 1 between Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry respectively. In particular clause 1(c) says that in the case of variation of inter-State routes,
it will be decided by the respective State Transport Authorities by mutual agreement, having due regard to the principles of parity above referred
to. Therefore, it is argued that the counter-signature of the State Transport Authority of Tamil Nadu was imperative.
Reference is next made 10 Rule 65-A(ii) of the Pondicherry Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, which came into force with effect from 27-4-1993.
Under this rule, a schedule of timing already fixed or approved for any particular stage carriage can be reduced or modified only after following the
procedure laid down in sub-rule (i) of the rule. Sub-rule (1) in turn makes it obligatory that such an alteration can be made only in consultation with
the applicant and the persons providing transport facilities on the route or sectors thereon. Therefore, it is argued that the order of the State
Transport Authority, Pondicherry on 30-11-1993 is totally without jurisdiction and has to be ignored. The petitioner therefore, seeks to sustain his
prayer for the issue of writ of mandamus to direct respondents 1 and 2 to prevent the third respondent from running on the varied route without
counter signature and without fixation of timings in accordance with law.
In meeting the above arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. M. Krishanappan, learned counsel for the third respondent, says
that no counter signature is necessary in respect of the subject route, replying on the second proviso to Section 88(1) of the Act. Since the
interpretation of the second proviso is warranted, I am giving below the said proviso:
Provided further that where both the starting point and the terminal point of a route are situate within the same State, but part of such route lies in
any other State and the length of such part does not exceed sixteen kilometers, the permit shall be valid in the other State in respect of that part of
the route which is in that other State notwithstanding that such a permit has not been countersigned by the State Transport Authority or the
Regional Transport Authority of that other State.
The argument is, that in this case both the starting point and the terminal point are situate within the same State, viz., State of Pondicherry and part
of the route which lies in the State of Tamil Nadu is only thirteen kilometers. Consequently, it is argued that the permit granted by the Pondicherry
State Transport Authority shall be valid in the Tamil Nadu State where only a part of the route lies, viz., to a length of thirteen kilometers. He also
relies on Section 80(3) for the proposition that an application for variation shall be treated as an application for the grant of a new permit. It is
therefore, argued for the third respondent, that in respect of the subject route, no counter-signature is necessary. However, Mr. M. Krishnappan
for the third respondent concedes that the tentative timings fixed on 30-11-1993 was contrary to Rule 65(A)(2) of the Pondicherry Motor
Vehicles Rules, 1989, and therefore, he suggests that a direction may be given to the Authorities to convene timing conference and ratify the
timings already granted to the third respondent. He also says that since the third respondent is running on the route from 1-12-1993, she may be
allowed to run till such a timing conference is convened.
Mr. V. T. Gopalan, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, disputes as the interpretation placed by the learned counsel for the third
respondent, and argues that the route in question is Pondicherry to Tiruvannainallur and if that route, which is sought to be varied and curtailed.
Tiruvannainallur is in the State of Tamilnadu. Therefore, the proviso above quoted will not come into play. The question for consideration is,
whether the words ""starting point and the terminal point of a route are situate within the same State"" should be interpreted to mean the route, which
is sought to be curtailed or varied. While the third respondent says that it is only the varied route, which must be taken note of, and if so taken, the
starting point of the varied route is Villianur, and the terminal point is Madakadipet, both of which are in the State of Pondicherry. On the other
hand, the petitioner says that the routes, which is referred to is the mother route, viz., Pondicherry to Tiruvannaianallur, one of which is in the State
of Tamilnadu, and therefore the proviso cannot at all apply. It is not disputed that the present route necessitated a counter-signature, and that a
counter-signature was, in fact, obtained. In interpreting the word ""route"" in the second proviso to Section 88, one has to read the entire section for
understanding meaning of the word. The section of the validation of a permit for use outside the region in which it was granted. By variation of a
route, it is not uncommon that a terminus as per the original route, is changed, and in such cases, if both the terminal are within the same State, the
proviso will come into operation. Even in common parlance nobody refers to a varied route having a starting point and a terminal point. Therefore,
in the context in which the proviso is introduced, I am of the opinion that the word ""a route"" means only the parent route or the route, which is
sought to be modified. If so, it goes without anything that the said proviso will not come to the aid of the third respondent. Consequently, it follows
that in respect of the varied route, it is obligatory on the part of the third respondent, to get the counter-signature of the State Transport Authority
of Tamilnadu, It is only after getting the counter-signature, the question of convening timing conference will arise as per the judgment of the Division
Bench of this Court in W.A. Nos. 220 and 221 of 1967 already referred to. Therefore, the mandamus sought for in W.P. No. 21781/93 has to be
granted. The plea of the third respondent that till the counter-signature is granted and timings are fixed, the third respondent may be permitted to
run on the varied route, in accordance with the tentative timings fixed on 30-11-1993, cannot be accepted. What is required to be done by law in
a particular manner has to be done only in the said manner, and not by circumventing the procedure. Having obtained the timings illegally, the third
respondent cannot be heard to say that she should be allowed to run on the varied route till the legal requirements arc completed. I will not be
justified in permitting the third respondent to do a thing, which I have held to be illegal. Consequently, the plea of the third respondent in this regard
is rejected.
In the result. W.P. No. 21780/93 is dismissed. W.P. No. 21781/93 is allowed as prayed for. There will be no order as to costs.
Order accordingly.