State Transport Employees Union vs Government of Tamil Nadu and Another

A.P. Shah, C.J.—The challenge in these writ petitions is to the draft modification of the approved scheme issued under the Tamil Nadu

Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules framed there under (hereinafter referred to as the ""Act"" and the ""Rules"") and the consequential hearing which

was scheduled on 08.07.2005.

The learned single judge vide order dated 06.07.2005 granted interim stay of all further proceedings in W.P.M.P. No. 23978 of 2005 in W.P.

No. 2201 9 of 2005 solely on the ground that the procedure prescribed under Rules 280(2) and 283(1) of the Rules has not been followed.

Following the said order of interim stay, similar orders have been passed in various other writ petitions.

The State has filed a counter affidavit to the stay petitions and also filed vacate stay petitions for vacating the interim stay granted by this Court

by order dated 06.07.2005.

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and we are of the opinion that the petitioners have failed to make out any prima

facie case for grant of interim reliefs and the interim stay granted earlier is liable to be vacated.

The brief facts are that the approved scheme formulated by the State Government vide G.O.Ms. Nos. 741 to 763 dated 23.05.1995 u/s 100 of

the Act covered the whole State excluding the Nilgiris District and permits were reserved for operations by State Transport Undertakings to the

complete exclusion of persons other than

(i) the State Transport Undertakings of other States,

(ii) the existing permit holders (small operators covered under the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Act, 1992 (Tamil Nadu Act 41

of 1992); and

(iii) the existing and future permit holders covered under Inter State Agreement.

In 1999, a revised proposal was made by the State Government as it felt the need to introduce mini buses to cover unserved rural areas and

modifications were sought to be made to the area schemes. The revised scheme was published in the Gazette Extraordinary dated 12.07.1999 and

after inviting objections from various quarters, the Government issued orders of modified area scheme dated 17.11.1999 which was gazetted on

18.11.1999 for 27 Districts in the State. This scheme was challenged in a batch of writ petitions in W.P. No. 19067 of 1999 etc. batch which

were dismissed by the learned single Judge (E.Padmanabhan, J.) vide common order dated 28.07.2000. The writ appeals as against the same are

pending in this Court. However, no stay has been granted and even the SLP filed against the refusal to grant interim stay was declined by the

Supreme Court.

So far as the present impugned draft modification is concerned, it has been pointed out in the counter filed by the State that after a due

consideration of the working of the modified scheme of 1999 and upon receiving representations from the public, the State found that it was

necessary to enlarge the scope of mini bus operations by increasing the route length and the number of mini buses. It was observed in this regard

that the overlapping distance of 4 Km under the existing provisions of the mini bus scheme was not adequate, since in several routes, the mini buses

were not able to reach the main bus stand as they were situate beyond the permissible served/overlapping 4 Km limit in the modified scheme. As a

result, villagers travelling by mini buses were compelled to take another bus to reach the bus stand or for that matter schools, colleges, railway

stations, hospital, etc., and thus the very object of introducing the mini bus operations was not being fully met.

Therefore, the State Government approved a further modification to the draft scheme on 01.06.2005. Under the modified scheme, it was also

decided that as far as Chennai metropolitan area is concerned, 500 mini buses be permitted to operate and it would enhance the benefit of the

travelling public. It is stated that there has been an unprecedented increase in the number of two wheelers in the Chennai Metropolitan Area, solely

on account of inadequate public transport system resulting in congestion on the roads and increase in vehicular pollution. It is further stated that the

proposal to extend the route from 20 Kms to 25 Kms and to permit the mini buses to operate within the city of Chennai was taken in public

interest. It is stated that based on this proposal, on 08.07.2005, a hearing was conducted and some of the petitioners also took part in the hearing.

However, by reason of the interim stay granted by the learned single Judge, the entire scheme for extension of the routes of mini buses has come to

a standstill which causes serious hardship to the public at large.

At the outset, we may mention that almost all the points raised in these petitions have been considered in a batch of writ petitions challenging the

modification dated 17.11.1999 by E.Padmanabhan, J. and expressly rejected vide his judgment and order dated 28.07.2000. In Writ Appeals

preferred against the said judgment interim relief was declined by this Court as well as by the Supreme Court.

The view of the learned single Judge that Rules 280(2) and 283(1) of the Rules are attracted to the present case, seems to be clearly erroneous

especially in view of the fact that Section 102 of the Act, under which the proposed modification has been initiated, prescribes the procedure to be

followed in the event of the State Government proposing a modification to a scheme. The twofold requirement is as follows:

(a) Publication in the official gazette and in one newspaper in the regional language circulating in the area which is proposed to be covered by such

modification; and

(b) A date not being less than 30 days from such publication in the official gazette and the time and place at which any representation received in

this behalf will be heard by the State Government.

In the instant case, the requirement of Section 102 of the Act has been fully complied with.

The petitioners are not right in contending that Rules 280(2) and 283(1) of the Rules are applicable to modification of a scheme. Section 102 of

the Act is a self-contained code and the requirements there under are exhaustive of the conditions to be satisfied while proposing a modification.

The scope and effect of the said Rules vis-`-vis Section 102 of the Act has been elaborately discussed by E.Padmanabhan, J. vide order dated

28.07.2000.

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 102 of the Act envisages only one time modification and once the approved scheme

is modified, by resorting to Section 102 of the Act a further modification is not contemplated and the State must resort to the provisions of Section

100 read with Rules 280(2) and 283(1) of the Rules. The said contention is required to the stated only for rejection. Section 102 of the Act does

not contain any such limitation and it is open to the State to make necessary modification in the scheme as and when contingency arises.

Another contention which was vehemently pressed before us was that the provisions of Section 6(4) of the Tamil Nadu Act 41 of 1992

expressly prohibits grant of any fresh permit and therefore, the State has no power to grant any new permit except in the case of existing

operators/protected operators as they are called. It was argued that Act 41 of 1992 which has received the assent of the President should prevail

over the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the provisions of Section 102 of the Motor Vehicles Act are not available for the State for

making any modification. This contention has been dealt with in extenso by E.Padmanabhan, J. and the learned Judge has held that Act 41 of 1992

is declaratory in nature and it has been enacted for the purpose of protecting certain private operators and it does not in any manner, affect the

State​s power to cause modification to the existing scheme u/s 102 of the Act. At least, prima facie, we are in agreement with the view expressed

by the learned Judge.

In our opinion, modification to the scheme was sought to be introduced in public interest and in any event, the petitions challenging the draft

modification scheme are really premature.

In the circumstances, we are of the view that this is not a fit case for grant of any interim relief. The interim stay granted in each of the petitions

is vacated.

We make it clear that the observations made above are only tentative observations for considering interlocutory relief and should not be

treated as an expression of opinion on the controversy raised in the petitions. The above writ miscellaneous petitions and vacate stay petitions are

closed. The writ appeals being W.A. Nos. 1285 to 1289 of 2000 etc., batch along with connected writ petitions be posted for final hearing in the

second week of March, 2006.