AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Chandru, J.—The petitioner in W.P.(MD) No. 8163 of 2009 is a mini bus operator. He is operating the mini bus with registration No. TN-01/N-0779. As per the route permit granted to the petitioner, he has to ply the mini bus from Monday market to Nallayankovil via., Christmas St., Paul St., Kollai Vilaku, Bethalpuram Vilaku Road, Karukkankuzhi Junction, Mathiravilaku, CSI Church Vilaku Road, Paramankarai - Mulamootuvilagam and Nallayankovil Vilaku for a period of 5 years starting from 05.07.2000.
The case of the petitioner was that Karungal bus-stand is one kilometer away from Nallayankovil. Therefore, they are entitled to ply the bus upto the Karungal bus-stand. But the second respondent, who is the selection grade Panchayat, who are maintaining the bus-stand has no right to prevent the petitioner''s bus while it was entering into the bus stand. It is also the claim that during the earlier years the Panchayat had collected entry fee and hence they are estopped from preventing their vehicle.
It was also argued that as per Rule 245(2)(1) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicle Rules, if a public bus stand is within the limits of a local authority and if it had been notified by the Regional Transport Authority any public service vehicle of that class by which the stand is intended, it can make use of the stand for the purpose of transferring the vehicle, for picking up and settling down the passengers. It is on this basis, the Writ petition came to be filed seeking for a direction to the respondents to forbear from preventing the bus from entering into the bus stand for the purpose of picking up or settling down the passengers.
Notice of motion was ordered on 19.08.2009. Pending the notice, an interim injunction was granted for a limited period. Thereafter, it was extended from time to time. The last extension was on 06.10.2009 for a period till 07.10.2009. Thereafter, there was no further extension.
On notice from this Court, the second respondent/Panchayat has filed a counter affidavit dated 27.09.2009. In paragraph 4 of the counter, it is clearly stated that the petitioner''s route permit do not allow them to enter either in the Karungal Town or its bus stand. As per the permit condition, the petitioner''s bus has to ply in a route which is 3 kms. away from the bus stand. Therefore, they have no right to enter the bus stand. Further, the Panchayat by its resolution No. 373 dated 20.10.2008 had authorised the Panchayat President to prevent unauthorised vehicles from entering the bus stand.
Though the petitioner''s claim in his reply was that the bus stand can accommodate the petitioner''s bus and that the bus stand was only within one kilometre from its permitted route, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Writ petition. The present prayer of the petitioner is misconceived. In the guise of seeking injunction against the 2nd respondent the petitioner in effect wants to use the Court order to vary his route permit. By taking the bus into the town and also into the bus stand a collateral benefit cannot be achieved by the petitioner. Further, the stand taken by the 2nd respondent Panchayat is legally valid and in commensurate with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and its Rules.
In W.P. No. 11155 of 2009, the petitioner therein was another operator who is seeking for a similar prayer. In that case, he was authorised to operate from Vazhathottam to Marthandam via Nattalam Puliamoodu Road Junction Turning, Karavilai, Nattalam Puliamoodu Junction, Nattalam Kovilvattam, Ezhathuvilai Road, Nattalam Edavilagam, Mamoottukadai, Kattachivilai, Viricode CSI Church Turning, Viricode Junction.
Notice of motion was ordered and in view of the earlier interim order in similar case, this Court also granted interim order on 03.11.2009. The reasons given in respect of W.P.(MD) No. 8163 of 2009 will also squarely applies to the case of the petitioner.
In the light of the fact that the petitioners do not have any route permits to enter the bus stand, the 2nd respondent are well within their rights to prevent the petitioners buses.
Hence, both the Writ petitions stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.