AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Jagadeesan, J.—These appeals have been preferred by the Appellants against the common order of the learned single Judge dated 17.9.94 made in W.P.850, 851 and 3506 of 1994. Though three other writ petitions were also concerned in the common order, we were told that no appeals were filed against those writ petitions.
We heard the arguments of Mr. V.A. Sadagopan, Mr. S.C. Palanisamy for the Appellants and Mr. R.P. Kabilan for the first Respondent. Since the issue involved in the writ appeals falls within the narrow campus as to interpretation of Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Act, 1992 (Act 41 of 1992), it is unnecessary to traverse the facts in detail.
The Appellant in W.A. 1265 of 1994 had sought for the variation of the conditions of permit with regard to the fixation of timings. The Appellants in W.A.1266 and 1267 of 1994 also sought for the variation of the conditions of the permit by seeking for the additional trip. The Regional Transport Authority rejected the request of the Appellants on the ground that in the absence of any Rules u/s 6 of the said Act, the application for variation of permit cannot be entertained. Aggrieved by the same, the Appellants preferred appeals before the State Transport Appellant Tribunal who allowed the appeals and granted the variation sought for by the Appellants accepting their contention that the absence of Rules is not a bar for the Regional Transport Authority to entertain the application of variation. As against the same, Annai Sathya Transport Corporation Limited and Anna Transport Corporation Ltd., the first Respondent herein filed the writ petitions.
It was urged before the learned single Judge that Section 6(1) and (2) of the Tamil Nadu Act 41 of 1992 empowers the authorities to grant such variation in accordance with the Rules. When no such Rules were framed under the amended Act, Section 6(3) empowers the authorities to deal with those applications for variation and pass orders as per the provisions of Chapter V of the Motor Vehicles Act. Hence the order of rejection by the Regional Transport Authority on the ground that there were no Rules to consider the application had been rightly set aside by the Appellate Tribunal and the variations were granted.
The learned single Judge after elaborate discussion has come to the conclusion that the matter has to be remitted back for fresh disposal by formulating certain guidelines on the ground that the Regional Transport Authority has no jurisdiction to grant variation of permits in respect of additional trips. So far as the variation of permits by grant of additional trip and variation of timings consequent to such grant of additional trip are concerned, the learned single Judge set aside the grant of the Appellate Tribunal as well as the order of rejection of the applications by the original authority and allowed the writ petitions. Aggrieved by the same, the above writ appeals have been filed.
The learned Counsel for the Appellants vehemently contended that Section 6(2) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Act, 1992 empowers the authority to vary the conditions of a permit for a stage carriage so as to enable the applicant to operate on the entire route or any portion of the route covered by such approved scheme in accordance with the Rules framed therefor. In the absence of any Rule as contemplated u/s 6(2), the Section 6(3) of the said Act automatically comes into operation and as such the existence of the Rules for exercise of power to grant variation is not absolutely necessary. It is further contended that the State Government has formulated the Rules subsequently. On the date of the order by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, there were no Rules and hence the learned single Judge ought to have held that the proceedings of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal granting the variation of permit to the Appellants is valid.
On the contrary, on behalf of the Respondents it is contended that the learned Judge has elaborately discussed various aspects and found that the variation under the special enactment cannot be granted in the absence of the Rules. In fact the learned single Judge has laid down the principle by formulating the guidelines and the applications can be considered on the basis of the guidelines laid down in the judgment. So far as the variation with regard to the additional trips or in respect of the routes, it has been held that the application cannot be entertained since it will amount to the grant of new permit which is not contemplated under the provisions of the special enactment. As there is no illegality in the order of the learned single Judge, the same has to be confirmed.
The questions for consideration are:
(1) In the absence of any Rule as contemplated u/s 6(2) of the Tamil Nadu Act 41/92, whether the authority can entertain the applications for variations by exercising the power under the Section, 6(3), because otherwise the said provision would be rendered redundant?
(2) Whether the grant of additional singles or variations of timing involving the grant of additional singles on a route, a portion of which overlaps the route covered by an approved nationalised scheme would constitute a variation amounting to grant of new permit, prohibiting the Regional Transport Authorities from granting the same?
We perused the judgment of the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge has referred to the provisions of the Act and also referred to the judgments cited by both the parties and discussed elaborately. When we found that there is no illegality in the judgment of the learned single Judge and the same do not call for any interference, as already stated, it is unnecessary to extract the provisions and enter into a discussion in detail. In our view, virtually it will amount to repetition of the contentions advanced by the respective counsel and the provisions of the Act. After laying down the guidelines, interpreting Section 6(2) of the Special enactment, the learned single Judge has remanded the applications of .the Appellants seeking variation of permit to the Original Authority for fresh consideration.
The main contentions advanced by the learned Counsel for the Appellants for consideration before us is the second question as to whether the grant of variation of additional singles and the tuning consequent to the grant of such additional singles will amount to new permit? It is further contended that in the absence of the framing of Rules as specified u/s 6(2) of the Special enactment, the Regional Transport Authority can entertain the applications for variation by virtue of Section 6(3) of the Act. There is no dispute that the nationalised scheme itself is a legislation. Hence the routes covered under the nationalised scheme cannot be varied or interfered with except by way of legislation. However, by way of delegated legislation, the authorities are permitted or authorised to discharge certain duties in conformity with the existing legislation. As the learned single Judge rightly pointed out, the Tamil Nadu Act 41/92 was enacted only on the ground the declaration of law by the Supreme Court in Pandiyan Roadways Corporation Ltd. Vs. M.A. Egappan, is to steer clear of the impediment by providing for renewals or grant of variation otherwise rendered not permissible even when such renewal or variation of a permit has the consequence of permitting the private operators to operate his vehicle on the entire or any part of the route covered by the approved scheme. The provision of Sub-section (2) of Section 6 is notwithstanding anything contained in the Motor Vehicles Act or in an approved scheme, the Regional Transport Authority may, on an application made by the small operator in accordance with the Rules made in that behalf and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, vary the conditions of a permit for a stage carriage so as to enable the applicant to operate on the entire route or any portion of the route covered by such approved scheme. Though Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 6 enable the making of Rules and the Authorities would be bound by such Rules, if any, is made pursuant thereto and obliged to give effect to them, the absence of such rules or non-prescription is not to be taken to deny the right and powers of the Regional Transport Authority to entertain applications to consider them. Sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the Special Act is the provision to over come the situation and effectively averts and avoid a stalemate and ensures that no vacum exist so as to pose any impediment in the way of the Regional Transport Authority, exercising powers conferred upon it u/s 6 of the Special Act and thereby achieve the implementation of the object and aim of the Special Act.
When the nationalised scheme is by itself a legislation, then the granting of any additional singles and the variation of timing due to such grant of additional singles would definitely amount to the interference with the nationalised scheme or the total variation of the scheme itself. By virtue of the nationalised scheme the States concerned under the scheme stipulated certain conditions including the number of trips to be operated in a scheme route. In our view, those conditions cannot be varied or modified by the delegated legislation, empowering the Authorities to grant such a additional singles and vary the conditions of a permit. This is because when the scheme is framed, the number of trips on the scheme route also is determined and fixed. Hence any variation of the permit by granting additional trip would amount to modification of the scheme, which itself is a legislation.
In an unreported decision of this Court in V. Gowri v. Raman Roadways and Ors. WA. No. 331/94 etc., dated 29.6.94, sifter adverting to the provisions of the particular scheme of nationalisation of the route Tiruchirapalli to Pondicherry and also the decisions of the Supreme Court on the subject, the Division Bench held that the existing operators are saved only to the extent of the route which they were operating on the date, the scheme came into force excluding thereby all other operators, that they are saved or permitted to operate only for the purpose of maintaining continuity of the existing services on area or route not covered by the schemes and the duration and consequently the existing or saved operators will not have any right to seek addition to the existing route overlapping the route included in the scheme.
From the above discussion, it is clear that if the route is covered by the scheme, the Regional Transport Authority has no authority to vary the permit by sanctioning the additional trip. The learned single Judge also held so. Hence, as already stated, the order of the learned single Judge does not call for any interference from us.
It may be pertinent to note that the government had framed Rules to consider the applications contemplated u/s 6(1) and (2) of the Act 41/92 in exercise of their Rule making power u/s 8(1) of the said Act. The Rules are known as the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Rules, 1995 which came into force on the 18th day of May, 1995. Though the Rules were framed subsequent to the disposal of the writ petitions by the learned single Judge, we are of the view that as on today when the Rules available for the Authorities to dispose of the necessary applications, the order of remand of the learned single Judge need not be interfered with.
Accordingly we confirm the order of the learned single Judge and dismiss all the writ appeals. There will be no order as to cost.