WA/429/2002 of R.VENKATAVARADA REDDIAR Vs THE ST. TRANS. AUTHORITY on 22 December 2006

1. The State Transport Authority,Pondicherry.

2. The Pondicherry Tourism & Transport Development Corpn. Limited, 40, Goubert Avenue,Pondicherry.

3. The Secretary,The State Transport Authority,Pondicherry.

... Respondents/Respondents

W.A. No.476 of 2002:-

M.Husman

... Appellant/Petitioner

vs.

1. State Transport AuthorityPondicherry, rep. by itsSecretary, Pondicherry.

2. Pondicherry Tourism andTransport Development Corporation Ltd.,rep. by its Managing Director,Pondicherry.

... Respondents/Respondents

W.P. Nos.8146 & 8147/2002:-

V.Vijayasekaran

... Petr. in both WPs.

vs.

1. State Transport Authority,

Union Territory of Pondicherry,Pondicherry.

2. The Secretary, State Transport Authority,Union Territory of Pondicherry,Pondicherry.

3. Pondicherry Tourism andTransport Development Corpn.,Pondicherry.

... Respondents in both the WPs.

W.A. Nos.429 & 476 of 2002:- Appeals under Clause 15 of the LettersPatent as against the Judgment of the learned single Judge, dated20.02.2002, made in WP Nos.17959 & 18401 of 2001. WP NO. 17959/01 AND 18401/01:- Petitioner presented to this Court under article 226 of theConstitution of India to issuw writs of certiorari 1) calling forthe records relating to the proceedings on the file of the 1stRespondent made in NO. 75442/TD-TP1/Permit/2001 dated 24.08.2001and quash the same (WP NO. 17959/01) AND

2) Calling for the records of the 1st respondent made in andrelating to NO. 75442/TD/TP1/Permit/2001 dated 24.08.2001 and theconseqeuntial proceedings No. 12/P4/2001 dated 11/9/01 and13/P4/2001 dated 11/9/01 and 13/PY/2001/TD/TP 1/2001 dated11.09.2001 and quash the same (WP 18401/01) respectively W.P. Nos.8146 & 8147/02:- Petitions under Article 226 of theConstitution of India for the issuance of a writ of certiorari tocall for the records of the first respondent pertaining to theorder made in Proceeding No.75442/TD/TP1/Permit/2001 dated24.08.2001 in granting 2 Interstate permits in favour of the thirdrespondent to ply on the inter-state route Pondicherry toVillupuram via Villianur, Kandamangalam Madagadipet and Vallavanur,and quash the same.

For Appellant in WA No.429/2002: Mr.M.KrishnappanFor appellant in WA No.476/02 & forpetitioner in WP Nos.8146 & 8147/02: Mr.M.PalaniFor R1 & R3 in WA No.429/02 and forR1 in WA.476/02: Mr.K.K.Sashidharan,Special Govt. Pleader (Pondicherry Government)For R-2 in boththe Appeals: Mr.R.Thiyagarajan, SeniorCounsel for Mr.T.Arulraj.COMMON JUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court, delivered by P.SATHASIVAM, J.)- - - - -Since the issue raised in all these matters is one and thesame, they are being disposed of by the following common Judgment.

2. a) One R.Venkata Varada Reddiar, petitioner in W.P.No.17959 of 2001, aggrieved by the Common Order of the learnedsingle Judge, dated 20.02.2002, rejecting his request to quash theregular permits issued in favour of the Pondicherry Tourism andTransport Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred toas 'PTDC'), has filed Writ Appeal No.429 of 2002.

b) Questioning the very same order of the learned singleJudge, one M.Husman, petitioner in W.P. No.18401 of 2001, has filedW.A. No.476 of 2002.

c) Aggrieved by the order of the State TransportAuthority, Pondicherry, dated 24.08.2001, granting 2 InterstatePermits in favour of PTDC, one V.Vijayasekaran, Proprietor ofM/s.Sri Raman Roadways, Pondicherry, has filed W.P. Nos.8146 and8147 of 2002.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. For convenience, we shall refer the case of R.VenkataVarada Reddiar-petitioner in W.P. No.17959 of 2001.

According to him, he is a stage carriage operator,operating three route buses and one spare bus. The permits havebeen issued by first respondent/the State Transport Authority,Pondicherry. The permits are included in the Interstate Agreement,entered into between the State of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry,published in the gazette dated 19.04.1985.

The first respondent granted two regular stage carriagepermits as pucca permits in favour of the 2nd respondent/PTDC, byproceeding dated 24.08.2001. The 2nd respondent was directed toobtain counter-signature from the State Transport Authority,Chennai, for the portion lying in Tamil Nadu and also to operate onDouble Point Tax. After obtaining the counter-signature from theState Transport Authority, Chennai, the 2nd respondent produced thevehicles before the first respondent and consequently, the StateTransport Authority, Pondicherry, issued necessary permit inrespect of two vehicles on tentative timings by proceedings dated11.09.2001. The petitioner, being an Operator, covering the entireroute now being operated by the 2nd respondent, aggrieved againstthe grant of permit in favour of the second respondent and also byfixing the tentative timings for the operation by the secondrespondent, challenged the orders of R-1 and R-3, dated 24.08.2001and 11.09.2001 respectively on the ground that they are illegal,contrary to the provisions of the Act and also against the judgmentof the Supreme Court in Ashwani Kumar vs. Regional TransportAuthority, Bikaner (1999 (8) SCC 364).

4. The General Manager of the Pondicherry Tourism andTransport Development Corporation, filed a counter affidavit,stating that the Writ Petition is not maintainable since there isan effective remedy available by way of Appeal under Section 89 orRevision under Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The temporarypermit already issued under Section 87(1) is valid and cannot bequestioned. Further, because of public agitation, the StationHouse Officer, Thirubhuvanai Police Station, Pondicherry, reportedto the Joint secretary (Revenue) cum Additional DistrictMagistrate, Pondicherry, regarding the rush of commuters onPondicherry-Villupuram route especially collie workers andindustrial workers during morning and evening hours, whereupon,immediate action was taken by the Government of Pondicherry and theManaging Director of the 2nd respondent-Corporation was directed toimmediately apply for permits, and in compliance thereof, temporarypermits were applied for and obtained.

Regarding the Interstate Agreement, it is stated that itdoes not restrict that any further permit particularly in favour ofpublic Transport Corporation should not be issued in the same routenamely, Pondicherry-Villupuram route on Double Point Tax. Evenotherwise, under Clause VI of the Interstate Agreement, dated09.03.1985, after mutual agreement between the State of Tamil Naduand Pondicherry, any clause can be amended or a new one added to itat any stage, accordingly, in the meeting dated 21.11.1998 betweenthe Government of Tamil Nadu and the Government of Pondicherry, itwas agreed to operate on the routes between the States in 1:4ratio. Following the said agreement, the first respondent, issuedtwo permits to the 2nd respondent to ply on the same route onpayment of Double Point Tax. It is specifically stated that, bythe Judgment of the Supreme Court cited by the petitioner, what iscontemplated is that no permit can be issued to a new route withoutthe concurrence of both the States to be operated on single pointtax system, whereas, in the present case, the route betweenPondicherry and Villupuram is already existing even as admitted bythe petitioner by the agreement entered in 1985 itself. It is onlyin the existing route, two permits have been issued by the 1strespondent, as such, it is absolutely valid under Section 88(1) ofthe Motor Vehicles Act.

Even with regard to the timings, under Proviso to rule 65-A(1)of the Pondicherry Motor Rules, 1989, it is the prerogative of theRegional Transport Authority, Pondicherry, to fix the timingsaccording to the convenience of the public.

5. Similar averments have been made in other two writpetitions/writ appeal.6. Heard Mr.M.Krishnappan and Mr.M.Palani, learnedcounselsfortheappellantsandwritpetitioners;Mr.K.K.Sashidharan, learned Special Government Pleader forGovernment of Pondicherry; and Mr.R.Thiyagarajan, learned SeniorCounsel for Pondicherry Tourism and Transport DevelopmentCorporation Limited.

7. Mr.Krishnappan and Mr.Palani, learned counselsappearing for the private Operators, contended that the grant ofpermit in favour of the PTDC is outside the purview of theagreement, consequently, the authority would have no jurisdictionto create a new route and grant the same. They further contendedthat the existence of permit would depend upon reciprocal agreementbetween the States and, since the permits do not exist in theInterstate Agreement, the Authority will have no jurisdiction togrant the same. According to them, the learned single Judgemisconstrued the Agreement and the terms made therein. They further argued that once the permit mentioned in the Agreementhaving been granted and exhausted, the present permit cannot be inrespect of an existing route coming within the purview of theInterstate Agreement.

8. On the other hand, Mr.K.K.Sashidharan, learned SpecialGovernmentfortheGovernmentofPondicherry,andMr.R.Thiyagarajan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for PTDC,submitted that, as per Clause-VI of the Agreement, no ceiling/limitis prescribed inasmuch as the reciprocating States are at libertyto add or alter any clause in the agreement, and that, in view ofSection-88 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the authority is wellwithin its power in granting permit in favour of the PTDC. Theyfurther contended that all the relevant aspects have been correctlyappreciated by the learned Judge, hence, there is no ground forinterference.

9. Under sub-section(7) of Section-88 of the MotorVehicles Act, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-Section(1)of the said Section, a Regional Transport Authority of one regionmay issue a temporary permit under Section 87 of the said Act to bevalid in another region or State with the concurrence, givengenerally or for the particular occasion, of the State Authority ofthat other State as the case may be. In view of the same, thetemporary permit already issued under Section 87(1) is valid andcannot be questioned.

10. With regard to the grant of additional permits infavour of the second respondent, in the counter affidavit, theGeneral Manager of PTDC has highlighted that because of the publicagitation, the Station House Officer, Thirubhuvanai Police Station,Pondicherry, reported to the Joint Secretary (Revenue) cumAdditional District Magistrate, Pondicherry, about the rush ofcommuters on Pondicherry-Villupuram route especially coolie workersand industrial workers during morning and evening hours, resultingin miscreant activities, whereupon, action was taken by theGovernment of Pondicherry and the Managing Director of PTDC wasdirected to apply for permits immediately. Accordingly, temporarypermits were applied for and obtained and, after expiry oftemporary permits, sensing the need, permanent permit has beenissued by the Authority on condition that it must be countersignedby the State Government of Tamil Nadu, which according to therespondents, was validly done. Admittedly, even in the absence ofagreement, counter signature will validate the permit issued to the2nd respondent-Corporation. Inasmuch as those permits have beengranted on condition of payment of Double Point Tax, we are of theview that there is no violation of law or any specific provision ofMotor Vehicles Act, thus, the rival contention relating to the sameis liable to be rejected.

11. Coming to the Interstate Agreement entered intobetween the Government of Tamil Nadu and the Government ofPondicherry in the year 1985, it is seen that both the Governmentsagreed thereby as to the number of permits to be issued by them forthe routes mentioned in the said agreement on single point tax. Asrightly pointed out by the learned counsels appearing for therespondents, it does not restrict the issuance of permitsparticularly in favour of Public Transport Corporation in respectof the same route, viz., Pondicherry-Villupuram route, on doublepoint tax. On a perusal of the various Clauses in the Agreement,we find that under Clause - VI as well as the Appendix to theAgreement, the parties/States are free to amend or add any clauseat any stage after mutual agreement between them. It was broughtto our notice that, in the meeting, dated 21.11.1998, between theGovernment of Tamil Nadu and the Government of Pondicherry, it wasagreed to operate on the routes between the States in the ratio of1:4, ie., Pondicherry-one vehicle and Tamil Nadu-four vehicles. Itwas pointed out that, following the said agreement only, the firstrespondent issued two permits to PTDC to ply on the same route onpayment of Double Point Tax. In those circumstances, we are of theview that the claim of the petitioners that there is no bilateralagreement between the two Governments cannot be accepted at all.

12. It is true that, as per the decision of the SupremeCourt in Ashwini Kumar's case, no permit can be issued in respectof a a new route without the concurrence of both the States to beoperated on Single Point Tax system. In the case on hand, it isdemonstrated before us that the route between Pondicherry andVillupuram is an existing route in view of the agreement enteredin 1985 itself. In other words, it is only in respect of theexisting route, two permits have been issued by the firstrespondent in favour of PTDC. In such circumstances, it is validunder Section-88(1) of the Act.

13. As pointed out by the respondents, Section-88 of theMotor Vehicles Act deals with the power to issue permits in respectof Interstate Routes. Insofar as the State of Tamil Nadu and theUnion Territory of Pondicherry are concerned, both the Governmentshave entered into a reciprocal agreement as provided under Section63 of the Act for the purpose of controlling the plying oftransport vehicles on interstate routes. As said earlier, the saidAgreement was published in the Gazette of Pondicherry dated19.04.1985. The Agreement provides that there should be parity ofpermits on interstate routes as mentioned in clause-1 of theagreement. It also provides that, if any violation arises on theinterstate routes, such aspect will be decided by the respectiveState Transport Authorities by mutual agreement.

14. As rightly pointed out by the learned Judge, theprovisions of Section-88 of the Motor Vehicles Act have to beconstrued in the light of the object of the enactment. MotorVehicles Act was enacted taking note of the increase in the numberof both commercial and personal vehicles in the country, toencourage the adoption of high technology in the automative sector,to cater to the needs of passengers and freight, to improve theroad safety standards and to exercise some control over thePollution Control matters and to fix the parameters where theprivate and public sectors can co-exist. In addition to the same,the need and convenience of the travelling public is of paramountimportance. In Ashwani Kumar's case, the Supreme Court held thatexistence of a route is a condition precedent for exercise of thepower under sub-Section(1) of Section 88 of the Act. TheirLordships further held that Interstate route under the scheme ofthe Act has to be reciprocal and cannot be unilaterally created byone State or an Authority in the State. It was further held thatthe concerned State Governments are supposed to deliberate anddecide the routes to be opened as interstate routes by determiningthe number of trips each route to have and prescribe otherconditions for the smooth functioning of the Act to achieve itsobjective which is claimed to be a social welfare legislation.Their Lordships also held that, in the absence of existence ofinterstate route, the authorities under the Act were not justifiedin granting the permits to the appellants therein. Thus, it isclear from the said decision that the existence of permit dependsupon the reciprocal agreements between the States covered by theroute.

15. It is brought to our notice that the Tamil Nadu StateTransport Corporation Limited, Villupuram Division No.1, are plying4 buses from Villupuram to Pondicherry on payment of Double PointTax in pursuance of the Interstate Agreement. By virtue of thesaid Agreement, the State Transport Authority, Pondicherry, issuedtwo permits to PTDC to ply on the same route on Double Point Tax.As rightly held by the learned Judge, the said agreement of 1985does not bar or prevent the issuance of any further permit beyondthe number mentioned therein. The decision of the Supreme Courtrelied on by the petitioner has no application to the issuance ofpermits in respect of existing routes but it is applicable only tonew routes and, because of the said reason, the learned Judgerightly concluded that the permits are valid and issued in exerciseof the power conferred under the Motor Vehicles Act.

16. It is also brought to our notice that the petitionerwas fully aware that several private fleet owners are plying theirbuses from Pondicherry to other parts of Tamil Nadu only onpayment of Double Point Tax. Admittedly, the private operatorsdid not choose to challenge the permits issued in their favour since they are well aware of the fact that, in the agreement, thereis no restriction for the issuance of permits with regard to theexisting route by the State Transport Authority, Pondicherry. Weare satisfied that the State Transport Authority has the power toissue any number of permits particularly for the sake of public byvirtue of the Interstate Agreement. It is brought to our noticethat, after 1985 agreement, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporationis running 75 vehicles on payment of Double Point Tax over andabove what is contained in the said Agreement.

17. As observed in the earlier paragraphs, Clause-VI ofthe Agreement enables the State of Tamil Nadu and the PondicherryGovernment to amend or add new clause in the agreement or appendixto the Agreement at any stage after mutual discussion andagreement. As rightly observed by the learned Judge, the number ofpermits covered in the agreement is not a precondition but the mainprerequisite for the issuance of permits is the existence of aninterstate route. For the sake of argument, even if we accept thatthe permits issued are outside the scope of the agreement, thepoint is clear that pending finalisation of the inter-stateagreement for which mutual discussion has already taken place, theRegional Transport Authority is free to exercise its powers underSection-88 of the Act provided there exists an inter-state routeand parity is also maintained. In those circumstances and in viewof the details available in the Interstate Agreement, we aresatisfied that the permits issued in favour of PTDC were validlyissued and the objection of the private operators cannot stand. Asrightly pointed out by the learned Judge, in Ashwani Kumar's case,permits were granted by the Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner,in respect of a route not covered in the agreement or in respect ofa route where the State Transport Undertaking was already playingits stage carriages.

18. We have already observed that as per Section-88,there must be an Agreement between the States and also an inter-state route. We reiterate that Courts have held that inter-stateroute under the scheme of the Act has to be reciprocal and cannotbe unilaterally created by one State or an authority in the Stateand that the State Governments concerned are supposed to deliberateand decide the routes to be opened as inter-State routes bydetermining the number of trips each route was to have andprescribe other conditions for the smooth functioning of the Act toachieve its objective which is claimed to be a social welfarelegislation. We are satisfied that absolutely there is no groundto quash the regular permits issued in favour of PTDC and thecontrary contentions raised are liable to be rejected.

19. In view of the above discussion, the Writ Appeals andthe Writ Petitions are liable to be dismissed, accordinglydismissed. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition standsclosed.JI.

Sd/

Asst.Registrar

/true copy/

Sub Asst.Registrar

To

1. The Secretary State Transport Authority, Pondicherry.

2. The Managing Director, Pondicherry Tourism & TransportDevelopment Corpn. Limited, 40, Goubert Avenue, Pondicherry.

3. The Secretary, The State Transport Authority,Union of Territory of Pondicherry.. Pondicherry + 4 cc to the Senior Government Pleader Pondicherry sr nos. 64784and 64786 and 64755, 64787

+ one cc to Mr. M. Krishnappan, Advocate sr no. 64538

+ one cc to Mr. T. Arulraj, Advocate sr no. 64831

BV(CO)NM(08.01.07)

Pre Delivery CommonJudgment in WA Nos.429 & 476/02 and WP Nos.8146 & 8147 of 2002 and connected MiscellaneousPetition.