AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This writ petition coming on for orders as to admission on this day upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and the
counter affidavit filed herein and upon hearing the argument of Mr. V. P. Raman for Mrs. Jayanthi Natarajan, advocate for the petitioner, and of
the Advocate-General for Mr. R. Balasubramanian, advocate for the 1st respondent, and of the Additional Government Pleader for the
respondents Nos. 2 and 3 herein, the Court made the following Order :--
The prayer in the writ petition is as follows:
..... to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus or any other appropriate order or direction to call for the records relating to the order dated 17-1-
1990 passed by the third respondent in R. No. A.3/6195/84 and quash the same and directing the third respondent not to interfere with the
operation of the petitioner''s bus, without giving him a proper hearing in accordance with the rules .....
The petitioner herein is a stage carriage operator, operating a stage carriage on the toute Madras to Puticat. It seems there was a draft scheme
of nationalisation in respect of the route Madras to Pulicat and it was formulated and published in the Gazette dated 29-1-1968. In response to the
same, the petitioner alone filed his representations under S. 68D(1) of the ''Motor Vehicles Act-. The said scheme was approved by the
Government under S.68(D)(2) of the Act. As against the Scheme, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 1526 of 1974 before this Court, and by order
dated 11-11-1977, the writ petition was allowed. Thereafter the petitioner herein had also filed certain additional objections, and the draft scheme
was taken up for hearing under S. 68D(2) by the Government on 25-7-1978. Both the petitioner and the respondent were present along with their
counsel. After hearing the counsel on both sides, the objec-lions were overruled and the scheme was approved in G.O. Ms. No. 1584 Home
dated 25-6-1979. As against the approval of the Scheme, the petitioner herein had filed W.P.-No. 2987 of. 1979 before this Court and by order
dated 25-2-1982 the writ petition was allowed by a single Judge of this Court, holding that there has not been a proper consideration of the
objections of the petitioner. Against this order, the first respondent herein filed a Writ Appeal No. 574 of 1982 along with an application for stay
of the operation of the judgment of the learned single Judge. It seems the Division Bench, after hearing both sides had permitted the writ petitioner
to ply his vehicle along with vehicle of the first respondent Corporation pending disposal of the writ appeal. A Division Bench of this Court, by
order dated 2-1-1990 reversed the order of the single Judge and the validity of the scheme approved had been upheld. The Division Bench of this
Court followed the decision of the Supreme Court in Capital Multi-purpose Co-operative Society Bhopal and Others Vs. The State of M.P. and
Others, . Since the writ appeal had been disposed of the orders passed in the interlocutory application would come to an end. It is stated that in
the meantime the petitioner was running his vehicle. On 5-12-1989, the permit holder has applied for the grant of temporary permit for a further
period of three months from 1-1-1990 to 31-3-1990 to ply his bus on the route Madras (Mint) to Pulicat. The temporary permit was lastly
granted on 17-12-1989. The said temporary permit issued was for the period 1-1-1990 to 31-3-1990 to ply on the route Madras (Mint) to
Pulicat or till the disposal of C.M.P. No. 11863/82 in W.A. No. 574 of 1982 whichever is earlier. Once the writ appeal has been disposed of
against the petitioner herein, the impugned order came to be passed and against this the petitioner came up before this Court with the prayer stated
supra.
It is alleged in the affidavit that the impugned order has been passed by unseemly haste, that the impugned order is violative of the principles of
natural justice. It is further alleged by the petitioner that the third respondent has acted by unseemly haste and with malafides. It is also alleged since
the petitioner herein is associated with Con-gress(I) party the ruling party in the State, has victimised him. It is further stated that before cancelling
the temporary permit, the third respondent ought to have given an opportunity to him, and that the failure of giving an opportunity is violative of
principles of natural justice.
Notice of motion has been ordered by me on 24-1-1990.
Learned Advocate-General, assisted by Mr. Balasubramaniam, appears for Corporation. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the first
respondent. It is claimed in the counter-affidavit that since Writ Appeal No. 574 of 1982, V. Vedagiri v. State of Tamil Nadu has been disposed
of on 2-1-1990, the order in the interlocutory application has come to an end and therefore the third respondent exercising the power conferred
under S. 103(2) of the Act, cancelled the temporary permit issued to the petitioner. The allegation that the impugned order is passed by unseemly
haste is also denied. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that the first respondent obtained a copy of the judgment in W.A. No. 574/823ated
2-1-1990 and furnished the same before the third respondent for implementing the approved scheme on 5-1-1990. It is further stated that the third
respondent took sufficient time and passed suitable orders, implementing the approved scheme by cancelling the temporary permit granted by
order dated 17-1-1990. The allegation of the petitioner that he has been victimised since he belonged to a different political party is denied in the
counter-affidavit. It is further claimed that in any event the fact that one belongs to one party or other have no relevance whatsoever, while
exercising statutory functions. The allegation that the third respondent ought to have given an opportunity to the petitioner is denied in the counter-
affidavit. It is further claimed that when the order in W.A. No. 574 of 1982 has been passed, the interlocutory order passed in C.M,P. 11863 of
1982 would come to an end.
Mr. V. P. Raman, for Mrs. Jayanthi Natarajan, the learned counsel for the petitioner produces before me a copy of the Supreme Court on 22-
2-1990 in petition to Special Leave to Appeal Civil No. 2267 of 1990 which runs as follows:
Mr. G. Ramaswamy, who appears for respondent No. 3 takes notice. Mr. Ramaswamy states that the Corporation has already started plying the
vehicles on the route and the petitioner is not plying. Mr. Chidambaram, however, does not accept this statement and says that the petitioner is also
plying on the route. In case the petitioner has been plying then he will be permitted to continue on the authority of this order.
Two weeks'' time is allowed to file the counter affidavit, as prayed for. List immediately thereafter.....
Mr. V. P. Raman, the learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the impugned order came to be passed due to the mala fide on the
part of the respondent State. The learned counsel further states that a notice ought to have been given before the first respondent cancelled the
temporary permit. Learned Advocate-General refers to a decision of the Supreme Court in Pandiyan Roadways Corporation Ltd. Vs. M.A.
Egappan, and contends that the writ petition is not maintainable at this stage. The learned Advocate-General denies the contention raised by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order came to be passed, only on mala fides on the part of the first respondent.
I have considered the arguments of Mr. V. P. Raman, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Advocate-General, for Corporation.
After the pronouncement of the order of the Supreme Court dated 22-2-1990, which has been extracted above, I do not think it is necessary to
entertain this writ petition. Further, I find that lastly the temporary permit was granted to the peti-tioner-with certain conditions i.e., for a period of
three months from 1-1-1990 to 31-3-1990 to ply on the route, or till the disposal of C.M.P. No. 11863/82 in W.A. No. 574/82 whichever is
earlier. As such, I do not think any notice is necessary as required by the learned counsel for the petitioner before the cancellation of the temporary
permit. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I, do not think that there is any violation of principles of natural justice.
The petitioner knows fully well that when the Writ Appeal 574 of 1982 is disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court, automatically the
temporary permit will go. I am not able to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is based on
mala fides, that too, built upon a ground based upon different political parties, and that the impugned order has to be set aside as it is in violation of
principle of natural justice. On facts, it can be seen that the scheme itself has been proposed and approved during the period in which another party
was in power in the State of Tamil Nadu. As such, it cannot be said that the present ruling party is responsible for the action taken by the first
respondent. I am not able to understand how the political partias will come into picture at all in such matters. It is also seen from the facts that the
fight started right from the year 1971 and went through a period where another political party was in power of the State of Tamil Nadu. As such, I
am not inclined to accept the contention of Mr. V. P. Raman, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner just because the petitioner belongs to
Congress(I) Party, he is being victimised. Further, as rightly pointed out by the learned Advocate-General, if the ratio said down in the dicta of the
Supreme Court which is reported in Pandiyan Roadways Corporation Ltd. Vs. M.A. Egappan, is taken note of, the action of the respondent
cannot be said to be illegal. There are no merits in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition will stand dismissed. However, there will be no
order as to costs. It is open to the petitioner herein to seek his remedy, if there is any, before, the Supreme Court, in view of the order of the
Supreme Court which I have quoted above.
Petition dismissed.