AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Honourable Mr. Justice Vinod K. Sharma
The Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer, for issuance of a writ, in the nature of mandamus, directing the Respondents to permit the Petitioner to ply under stage carriage, covered by the vehicle No. TN-49-J-1606 on varied Mofussil route Pattukottai to Sembattavidhthi (via) Malayur etc.
It is not in dispute that the order passed by the first Respondent was cancelled, on passing of the Act, by the State Legislature, i.e. the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) (Cencellation of Variation of Conditions of Permit) Act 1996 [herein-after referred to as Act]. The Act was subsequently held to be ultra vires, in W.P.(MD) No. 23854, 23880, 23881 etc. of 2001, 29,91 to 94 of 2002, in the case of R. Srinivasan v. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by Secretary, Home Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9 and another, (2004 (2) TNMAC 68 (DB)).
The Petitioner also filed W.P. No. 25104 of 2001 challenging the constitutional validity of the Act, and prayed for interim directions to operate the vehicle, on the varied route, in accordance with the order, dated 16.04.1996 passed by the Regional Transport Authority.
This Court issued interim direction, permitting the Petitioner to operate his vehicle in accordance with order, dated 16.04.1996, the Regional Transport Authority, Thanjavur, if the order had been given effect to.
The case of the Petitioner is that the order was given effect to, before passing of interim order. The order passed by this Court is in full force, as the writ petition is stated to be pending.
In view of the order passed by this Court, in W.P. (MD) No. 25104 of 2001, this petition prima facie, is not competent, and is a misuse of the process of the court. The writ jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked to seek direction for implementation of the interim orders, passed by this Court or any other subordinate authorities/courts. A wrong practice is being followed by the parties in filing repeated writ petitions on the same cause of action, which deserves to be deprecated.
The Petitioner was fully aware of the order in his favour as in the notice, it was clearly stated that in the event of the order, being not implemented, contempt of proceedings will be initiated, but for the reasons best known to the Petitioner, he has chosen to file the second writ petition on the same cause of action, which is not maintainable.
The writ petition being not competent, is ordered to be dismissed.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.