WP/17464/2004 of V.R.PALANIAPPAN Vs THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT on 22 December 2006

1. The Regional Transport AuthorityMadurai South, Madurai.

2. The Tamilnadu State TransportCorporationrep by its Managing DirectorBye pass Road, Madurai-10.... Respondents in W.P.1746413291, 15441 to 15443, 15688,15689, 16209, 16210, 18879,18880, 18881 to 18884, 18885,19466, 19467, 19697, 19835,12460, 831, 832, 1167 to 1171,1534, 1776,11273 to 11275 of2004, 3092 of 2005, 2524 of2004

1. The Inspector of PoliceTraffic Police Station,Theppakulam, Madurai CityMadurai.2. The Tamilnadu State TransportCorporation Ltd.,Bye Pass Road,Madurai-10.... Respondents in w.P.22302 & 22003, 33972, 38263 of 2003

1. The Secretary to GovernmentTransport DepartmentFort St. George,Chennai-9.

2. The Regional Transport AuthorityMadurai Town at Madurai.

3. The Tamilnadu State TransportCorporation rep by itsManaging Director,Bye pass Road, Madurai-10.Respondents in W.P.2201 to 2203, 2735 to 2737 of 2004

and 1152 of 2005

1. The Special Commissioner andSecretary to GovernmentTransport (E) DepartmentFort St. George, Chennai-9.

2. The Regional Transport AuthorityMadurai District, Madurai.

... Respondents in W.P.3817 &3818, 4321 & 4322, 4585 to 4589 of 2004

1. The Regional TransportAuthority,Sivagangai.2. The Regional TransportAuthorityMadurai North at Madurai.

3. The Tamilnadu StateTransport Corporation rep by its Managing Director,Bye pass Road, Madurai-10.

... Respondent in W.P.19906/04

1. The Special Commissioner andSecretary to GovernmentTransport (E) DepartmentFort St. George, Chennai-9.

2. The District Collector cumRegional Transport AuthorityMadurai District, Madurai.

... Respondents 1 and 2 in W.P.4409 and 14286 of 2004

3. The State Transport Appellate TribunalHigh Court BuildingsChennai-104.

4. The Managing Director,Tamilnadu State TransportCorporation (Madurai) ltd.,Bye pass road, Madurai.10

... Respondent 1 to 4 in W.P.4301 of 2004

1. The District CollectorDistrict Collectorate OfficerMadurai- 625 020

2. The Regional Transport officerRegional Transport Office,Chokkikulam, Madurai.... Respondents in W.P.2363 of 20011. The SecretaryMinistry of Home AffairsGovernment of TamilnaduChennai.

2. The Transport CommissionerGovernment of TamilnaduChepauk, Chennai

3. The Regional Transport Authority CumDistrict Collector,Madurai District, Madurai. 4. The Commissioner of Police,Madurai City, Madurai. 5. The Madurai DistrictBus Owner's AssociationMadurai.

6. A. ThangasamyDistrict PresidentSouth Indian ConsumerProtection council/Aruppukottai (R5 impleaded as per order of this Court dated 3.8.2006 FMIKJ and KNJ in W.P.6635/06)

(R6 impleaded as per order of this Court dated 27.9.2006 PKMJ and GRSJ in MP.2/06 in W.P.6635/06)... Respondents in W.P.6635 of 2006

P.K. Anusuya Propx.Sri Palani Motors

2. The Regional TransportAuthorityCollector Office,Madurai .

3. The State Transport Appellate TribunalHigh Court, Madras.

4. Aruppukottai chamber of Commercerep by its Secretary... 2 to 4 Respondents in W.P.26300 of 2001 and 26301/01

1. Rajavel Transport by its prop. P.T. Palanivel RajanAruppukottai.Mahalingam Transportby its prop. P. ThiagarajanKamuthi.Meenambigai Road waysby its Prop. N. Anandan A. SathishAruppukottai.Srinivasa MotorsR. AnbukkarasanSattur.Srinivasa Travels R. SrinivasanSattur.Dilip TransportDr. P.R. DilipAruppukottaiPradeep TransportP.R. PalanipradeepAruppukottai Jeya RoadwaysN. MahalingamAruppukottai.

Chandra TransportAruppukottai.

Rathina TransportDr. RathinasamyAruppukottai.Srinivasa roadwaysN. Meena Sattur.

Sivaram TransportProp. P.K. Sivarama GaneshRamanathapuram.

S.A. RoadwaysMadukulathur.

Srinivasa Bus ServiceN. Raju Reddiar,Sattur.

Jeya ,Jeya RoadwaysAruppukottai.Prop. P.R. Dilip(Sri Dilip Transport)AruppukottaiS. SenthilkumarS. BalamuruganA. SakthivelL. SubadraR. GopalakrishnanK. Nachiappan

... First respondent in W.P.463 to 476

of 2002

... First respondents in W.P.4086 to 4093 of 2002

The Regional Transport AuthorityCollectors Office,Madurai.

The State Transport Appellate TribunalHigh Court, Chennai.

... Respondents No. 2 and 3 in W.P.463/02 to 476 of 2002 and 4086 to 4093 of 2002

1. The Secretary to Governmentof TamilnaduHome DepartmentFort St. George, Chennai-9.

2. The State Transport AppellateTribunal, Chennai- 600 104.

3. The Regional Transport AuthorityDistrict Collector,Collectorate, Madurai.

4. The CommissionerMadurai CorporationArignar Anna Maligai,Madurai.

... Respondents in W.P.26039 of 2003

W.P.17464 of 2004

Writ Petition filed under Art 226 of the Constitution of India toissue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents herein not toobstruct or create hindrance or trouble in the operation of the busbelonging to the petitioner herein on the course of the route viz.,Madurai central Bus stand (Periyar Bus stand ) to Virudhungar (via)Goripalayam, Simmakkal, Parapatti, Koodakovil, etc in respect of theBus TN-47/H-5287.

W.P.22302 of 2003:- writ of Mandamus directing the respondentsherein not to obstruct or create hindrance or trouble in theoperation of the bus belonging to the Petitioner vehicle No.TN-63-A-67777 is permitted to ply between Madurai to Sivagangai viz.,Thiruppuvanam, Padamathur, Mickelpattinam, Periyakottai, MariammanTheppakulam, Keezhavasal, Anna Bus Stand and Mattuthavani Bus stand.

W.P.22303 of 2003:- writ of Mandamus directing the respondentsherein not to obstruct or create hindrance or trouble in theoperation of the bus belonging to the Petitioner Viz., TN-58-P-6669permitted to ply on the route Madurai to Parthipanoor viz.,Thiruppuvanam, Thiruppachetty and Muthanethal, Manamadurai,Karisalkulam, Mariamman Theppakulam Keehavasal, Anna Bus stand andMattuthavani Bus stand within dependent trips between Madurai andKattur Viz Thiruppuvanam Thiruppachethy , Thanjappor, MariammanTheppakulam, Keezhavasal, Vettilaipettai, Anna Bus Stand andMattuthavani Bus stand.

W.P.33972 of 2003:- writ of Mandamus directing the respondentsherein not to obstruct or create hindrance or trouble in theoperation of the bus belonging to the petitioner Viz., TN-58-8635permitted to ply on the route Madurai to Kattikulam Viz., Anna Bus stand simmakkal Crime Branch, Keelavasal, Munichalali, theppakulam,Thiruppuvanam, Thiruppachethy, Muthunanenthal with 8 (eight) singleson the entire route.

W.P.28263 of 2003:- writ of Mandamus directing the respondentsherein not to obstruct or create hindrance or trouble in theoperation of the bus belonging to the petitioner on the course ofthe route viz Bus No.TN-63-A-2277 since replaced by TN-63-W-5599permitted to ply between Karaikudi to Madurai Viz Anna Bus standSimmakkal Crime Branch, Keelavasal, Munichalai, Theppakulam,Silaiman, Thirupuvanam for four singles on the entire route.

W.P.13291 of 2004:- Writ Petition filed under Art 226 of theConstitution of India to issue a writ of Mandamus directing thefirst respondent herein to forbear the second respondent fromobstructing or creating hindrance or trouble in the operation of theBus belonging to the Petitioner on the course of the route Viz., TN-58-C-8595 on the route Madurai to Veeracholam Viz Anna Bus Stand,Simmakkal, Crime Branch Keelavasal, Munichalai, Theppakulam,Thiruppuvanam, A. Mukkulam, Narikudi Touching Nallur.

W.P.15441 of 2004:- Writ Petition filed under Art 226 of theConstitution of India to issue a writ of Mandamus forbearing therespondents herein from obstructing or creating hindrance or troublein the operation of the Bus belonging to the Petitioner on thecourse of the route viz., TN-59-R-9777 on the route Madurai CentralBus Stand (Periyar Bus stand) to Sirugudi Via Simmakkal,Goripalayam, Thallakulam, Mattuthavani and Othakadai.

W.P.15442 of 2004:- Writ of Mandamus directing the respondentsherein not to obstruct or create hindrance or trouble in theoperation of the bus forbearing the Respondents herein fromobstructing or creating hindrance or trouble in the operation of thebus belonging to the petitioner on the course of the route Viz TN-59-W-0885 on the route Madurai Central Bus stand (Periyar Bus stand)to Musundapatti Via., Simmakkal, Goripalayam and Thallakulam,Mattuthavani with independent trips between Madurai Central Busstand(PeriyarBusStand)toPoonnamaravathiViaSimmakkal,Goripalayam, Thallakulam and Mattuthavani.

W.P.15443 of 2004:- writ of Mandamus directing the respondentsherein not to obstruct or create hindrance or trouble in theoperation of the bus belonging to the petitioner on the course ofthe route Viz., TN-59-Q-5018 on the route Madurai Central Bus stand(Periyar Bus stand) Saruguvalaya Patti Via Simmakkal Goripalayam andThallakulam, Mattuthavani with independent trips between MaduraiCentral Bus stand (Periyar Bus stand) to Madhagupatti Viz Simmakkal,Goripalayam, Thallakulam and Mattuthavani and with independent tripsbetween Madurai Central Bus Stnd (Periyar Bus stand) to Kottampatti Viz Simmalkkal, Goripalayam, Thallakulam and Mattuthavani.

W.P.15688 of 2004:- Writ of Mandamus directing the respondentsherein not to obstruct or create hindrance or trouble in theoperation of the bus belonging to the petitioner on the course ofthe route viz T.N. 59-Q 5767 on the route Madurai Central Bus stand(Periyar Bus stand) to Ponamaravathi Via Simmakkal, Goripalayam,Thallakulam, Mattuthavani, Melur Karunkalagudi, Sakkampatti,Singapuneri etc touching Chockalinga puram and Piranmalai.

W.P.15689 of 2004:- writ of Mandamus directing the respondentsherein not to obstruct or create hindrance or trouble in theoperation of the bus belonging to the petitioner on the course ofthe route Viz TN-59-W-1213 on the route Madurai Central Bus stand(Periyar Bus stand) to Rangiummettu viz Simmakkal, Goripalayam,Thallakulam,MattuthavaniMelur,Tirupathur,Nerkuppai,Ponamaravathi etc.

W.P.16209 of 2004:- writ of mandamus forbearing the respondentsfrom obstructing or creating hindrance or trouble in the operationof the Bus belonging to the petitioner on the course of the routeViz TN-58-E-4848 on the route Madurai Central Bust Stand (PeriyarBus Stand ) to Dindigul via. simmakkal Goripalayam, Thallakulam,Mattuthavani, Melur Thumbaipatti, Karunkalakudi, Kottampatti,Chittampatti, Melur and independent trip between Madurai toThuvaramkurichi viz Melur , Thumbaipatti etc.

W.P.16210 of 2004:-Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondentsfrom obstructing or creating hindrance or trouble in the operationof the Bus belonging to the petitioner on the course of the routeviz TN-47-J-4774 on the route Madurai Central Bus Stand (Periyar BusStand) to Dindigul via, simmakkal Goripalayam, Thallakulam,Mattuthavani, Melur, Melavalavu, Sekkipatti, Natham and Gopalpatti.

W.P.18879 of 2004:- To issue writ of Mandamus forbearing therespondents herein from obstructing or creating troubles or problemsin the operation of the service of the Bus bearing Bus No.TN-59-Q-5803 permitted to ply between Madurai Central Bus stand (Periyar Busstand) to Kallal via. Simmakkal, Goripalauam, Thallakulam,Mattuthavani, Melur, Vellalur, Alvakottai, Madhagupatti andSemmanur.

W.P.18880 of 2004:- Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondentsherein from obstructing or creating troubles or problems in theoperation of the service of the Bus bearing Bus No.TN-59-S-0976permitted to ply between Mandalamanickam to Madurai Central BusStand (Periyar Bus stand) to Madurai Via. Kamuthi, Abiram,Parthibanur Thapakulam, East Gate, Goripalayam, Thallakulam, Mattuthavani, and with independent trips between Madurai Central Busstand (Periyar Bus Stand) via. Thapakulam, East Gate, Goripalayam,Thallakulam, Mattuthavani, Thirupuvanam, Manamudari etc., W.P.18881 of 2004:- Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondentsherein from obstructing or creating troubles or problems in theoperation of the service of the Bus bearing Bus No.TN-59-Q-6156permitted to ply between Madurai Central Bus Stand (Periyar Busstand) to Ponnamaravathi Via. Simmakkal, Goripalayam, Thallakulam,Mattuthavani, Melur, Keelavalavu, A. therkur, Nerkuppai andVenthanpatti.

W.P.18882 of 2004:- Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondentsherein from obstructing or creating troubles or problems in theoperation of the service of the Bus bearing Bus No.TN-59-Q-7961permitted to ply between Madurai Central Bus stand (Periyar Busstand) to Paganeri Via., Simmakkal, Goripalayam, Thallakulam,Mattuthavani, Melur, Vellanur and Madhagupatti with independent tripbetween Madurai Central Bus stand (Periyar Bus stand) to KarukalkudiVia. Simmakkal, Goripalayam, Thallakulam, Mattuthavani, Melur,Melavalavu and Kambur.

W.P.18883 of 2004:- Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondentsherein from obstructing or creating troubles or problems in theoperation of the service of the Bus bearing Bus No.TN-59-Q-9446permitted to ply between Madurai Central Bus stand(Periyar Busstand) to Ponnamaravathi Via. Simmakkal, Goripalayam, Thallakulam,Mattuthavani, Melur, Thumbaipatti, Attapatti, Singampuneri,Piranmalai and Venthanpatti with independent trip between MaduraiCentral Bus stand (Periyar Bus stand) to Piranmalai Via Simmakkal,Goripalayam, Thallakulam, Chittampatti, Melur, Singampuneri etc.

W.P.18884 of 2004:- Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondentsherein from obstructing or creating troubles or problems in theoperation of the service of the Bus bearing Bus No.TN-59-R-7704permitted to ply between Madurai Central Bus stand(Periyar Busstand) to Piranmalai Via. Simmakkal, Goripalayam, Thallakulam,Mattuthavani, Melur, Thumbaipatti, Attapatti, Singampuneri, withindependent trip between Madurai Central Bus stand (Periyar Busstand) to singampuneri Via. Simmakkal, Goripalayam, Thallakulam,Mattuthavani, Chittampatti, Melur, Singampuneri etc. withindependent trip between Madurai Central Bus stand (Periyar Busstand) to Sivagangai via. Simmakkal, Goripalayam, Thallkulam,Mattuthavani, Melur, and Idayamelur and Madurai Central Bust stand(Periyar Bus stand) to Paganeri via. simmakkal, Goripalayam, Melur,Okkur and Madhagupatti.

W.P.No.18885 of 2004:- Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents

W.P.No.18885 of 2004:- Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents herein from obstructing or creating troubles or problems in theoperation of the service of the Bus bearing Bus No.TN-58-J-9144permitted to ply between Madurai Central Bus stand(Periyar Busstand) to Nachandupatti Via. Simmakkal, Goripalayam, Thallakulam,Mattuthavani, Othakadai, Melur, Muraiyur and Ponnamaravathy etc.

W.P.No.19466 of 2004:- Writ of Mandamus forbearing therespondents from obstructing or creating hindrance or troubles inthe operation of the bus belonging to the Petitioner on the courseof the route Viz. TN 59-U-6669 on the route Madurai Central Busstand (Periyar Bus stand) to Ponnamaravathi Via. Simmakkal,Goripalayam,Thallakulam,Mattuthavani,Othakadai,Melur,Karunkalagudi, Singamuneri, Piranmalai and Vendanpatti withindependent trip between Madurai Central Bus stand (Periyar Busstand) to Piranmalai Via.Simmakkal, Goripalayam, Thallakulam,Mattuthavani, Othakadai, Melur, karunkalkudi and Singamuneri.

W.P.No.19467 of 2004:- Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondentsfrom obstructing or creating hindrance or trouble in the operationof the Bus belonging to the petitioner on the course of the routeViz. TN-63-C-8800 on the route Madurai Central Bus stand (PeriyarBus stand) to Pudukkottai via. Simmakkal, Goripalayam, thallakulam,Mattuthavani, Othakadai, Melur, Tiruppathur and Thirumayam etc.

W.P.19697 of 2004:- Writ of Mandamus forbearing therespondents herein from obstructing or interfering with theoperation of the Petitioner's vehicle bearing Regn.No.TN55/J1414permitted to ply between Pudukottai and Madurai Central Bus stand(Periyar Bus stand) via. Thirumayam, Thirupathur, Melur, Othakadai,Simmakkal and Periyar bus stand.

W.P.19835 of 2004:- Writ of Mandamus directing the respondentsherein not to obstruct or create hindrance or trouble in theoperation of the buses belonging to the petitioner herein on thecourse of its route viz. Madurai Central Bus stand (Periyar Busstand) to Ponnamaravathi (via) Simmakkal, Goripalayam, Parapatti,Melur, Kodukkampatti, singampunari, Piranmalai and Varpat in respectof his bus TN 59/P-7079 replaced by TN-63/W-8199.

W.P.No.19906 of 2004:- Writ of Mandamus directing therespondents herein not to obstruct or create hindrance or trouble inthe operation of the buses belonging to the petitioner herein on thecourse of its route Viz. Madurai Central Bus stand (Periyar Busstand) to Samuthirapati (via) Simmakkal, Goripalayam, Melur,Thiruppathur, Singampunari, Kottampatti in respect of his bus TN-49/F-0909 replaced by TN-63/W-7079.

respondents herein from obstructing or creating troubles or problemsin the operation of the service of the Bus bearing Bus No.TN-59-J-2988 permitted to ply between Madurai Central Bus stand (Periyar Busstand) to Kallal via. Simmakkal, Goripalayam, Thallakulam andMattuthavani with independent trips between Madurai Central Busstand (Periyar Bus stand) to Melur via. Simmakkal, Goripalayam,Thallakulam, Mattuthavani and Thiruvathavur.

W.P.831 of 2004:- Writ of Mandamus forbearing by obstructingor creating hindrance or trouble in the operation of the busbelonging to the petitioner bearing Regn.No.TN-58-H-2390 on theroute Madurai Central Bus stand (Periyar Bus stand) to Karaikudi ViaSimmakkal, Goripalayam, Thallakulam, Mattuthavani and Othakadai.

W.P.832 of 2004:- Writ of Mandamus forbearing respondents hereinfrom forbearing by obstructing or creating hindrance or trouble inthe operation of the bus belonging to the petitioner bearingRegn.No.TN-58-H-1311 on the route Madurai Central Bus stand (PeriyarBus stand) to Kamudhi Via. Theppakulam Keelavasal, Crime Branch,Simmakkal and Goripalayam.

W.P.1167 of 2004:- Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondentsfrom obstructing or creating hindrance or troubles in the operationof the bus belonging to the petitioner bearing Regn.No.TN-58-F-0614on the route from Madurai Bus stand now at Mattuthavani to KamudhiVia Theppakulam, Keelavasal, Crime Branch, Simmakkal andGoripalayam.

W.P.1168 of 2004:- Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondentsfrom obstructing or creating hindrance or troubles in the operationof the bus belonging to the petitioner bearing Regn.No.TN-58-J-1633on the route from Madurai Bus stand now at Mattuthavani to Kamudhivia. Theppakulam, Keelavasal, Crime Branch, Simmakkal andGoripalayam.

W.P.No.1169 of 2004:- Writ of Mandamus forbearing therespondents from obstructing or creating hindrance or troubles inthe operation of the bus belonging to the petitioner bearingRegn.No.TN-58-J-1624 on the route from Madurai Bus stand now atMattuthavani to Kamudhi via. Theppakulam, Keelavasal, Crime Branch,Simmakkal and Goripalayam.

W.P.1170 of 2004:- Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondentsfrom obstructing or creating hindrance or troubles in the operationof the bus belonging to the petitioner bearing Regn.No.TN-58-J-1658on the route from Madurai Bus stand now at Mattuthavani to Kamudhivia. Theppakulam, Keelavasal, Crime Branch, Simmakkal andGoripalayam.

W.P.No.1171 of 2004:- Writ of Mandamus forbearing therespondents from obstructing or creating hindrance or troubles inthe operation of the bus belonging to the petitioner bearingRegn.No.TN-58-H-2769 on the route from Madurai Bus stand now atMattuthavani to Karaikudi Via Crime Branch, Simmakal, Koripalayam,Thallakulam and Mattuthavani.

W.P.1534 of 2004:- Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondentsfrom obstructing or creating hindrance or troubles in the operationof the bus belonging to the petitioner bearing Regn.No.TN-63-W-2066on the route from Paramakudi to Madurai Bus stand now atMattuthavani via. Theppakulam, Keelavasal, Crime Branch, Simmakkaland Goripalayam.

W.P.1776 of 2004:- Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondentsfrom obstructing or creating hindrance or troubles in the operationof the bus belonging to the petitioner bearing Regn.No.TN-59-T-7077on the route from Velarendal to Madurai Bus stand now atMattuthavani via. Theppakulam, Keelavasal, Crime Branch, Simmakkaland Goripalayam.

W.P.2201 of 2004:- Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondentsherein from obstructing or creating hindrance or troubles orproblems in the operation of the bus bearing Regn.No.TN-58-H-7537permitted to ply between Madurai to Mudukolathur Via. Anna Busstand, Simmakkal, Crime Branch, Keelavasal, Munichalai, Theppakulam,Thirupuvanam, A. Mukkulam, Narikudi, Veeracholan etc, pendingdisposal of the above writ petition.

W.P.2202 of 2004:- Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondentsherein from obstructing or creating troubles or problems in theoperation of the service of the bus bearing Bus.No.TN-58-H-7921permitted to ply between Madurai to Kamudhi Via. Anna Bus stand,Simmakkal, Crime Branch, Keelavasal, Munichalai, Theppakulam etcpending disposal of the above writ petition.

W.P.2203 of 2004:- Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondentsherein from obstructing or creating troubles or problems in theoperation of the service of the bus No.TN-58-H-7536 permitted toply between Madurai to Mudukolathur Via. Anna Bus stand, Simmakkal,Crime Branch, Keelavasal, Munichalai, Theppakulam, Thirupuvanam, A.Mukkulam, Narikudi, Veeracholan etc. pending disposal of the abovewrit petition.

W.P.No.2735 of 2004:- Writ of Mandamus forbearing therespondents herein from obstructing or creating troubles orproblems in the operation of the service of the bus bearing BusNo.TN-63-D-6777 permitted to ply between Manamadurai to AlagarkoilVia. Sivagangai, Melur, Madurai Central Bus stand (Periyar Bus

stand) Via. Simmakkal, Goripalayam, Thallakulam, Mattuthavani,Othakadai, Melur with independent trips between Manamadurai toMadurai, Central Bus stand (Periyar Bus stand ) via, Simmakkal,Goripalayam, Thallakulam, Mattuthavani, Othakadai, Melur etc.

W.P.2736 of 2004:- Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondentsherein from obstructing or creating troubles or problems in theoperation of the service of the bus bearing Bus No.TN-63-D-3777since replaced by TN 63 D 9777 permitted to ply between MaduraiCentral Bus stand (Periyar Bus stand) to Manamadurai Via. simmakkal,Goripalayam,Thallakulam,Mattuthavani,Othakadai,Melur,Keelapoongodi, Sivagangai etc with Independent trips betweenSivaangai to Thiruppuvanam via. Periyakottai, Vembattur Pacheri.

W.P.2737 of 2004:- Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondentsherein from obstructing or creating troubles or problems in theoperation of the service of the bus bearing Bus. No.TN-58-9199permitted to ply between Ilayankudi to Madurai Central Bus stand(Periyar Bus stand) Via. Anna Bus stand, Simmakkal, Crime Branch,Keelavsal, Munichalai, Theppakulam and Thirupuvanam etc.

W.P.11273 of 2004:- Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondentsherein not to obstruct or create hindrance or trouble in theoperation of the Bus belonging to the petitioner on the course ofthe route Viz. Madurai Central Bus stand to Natham Via. DailyThanthi Office, Mehaboob Palayam, Arasaradi, Kalavasal, GuruTheatre, Tirumangalam, Tirupparamkundram, Madurai, Sholavanthan,Nilakkottai and Batlagundu with shuttle trip between Ayyampalayam toMadurai via. Daily thanthi Office, Mehaboob Palayam, Arasaradi,Kalavasal, Guru Theatre, Nilakottai, Anaipatti, sholavanthan andTovariman and between Ayyampalayam to Virudhunagar via. DailyThanthi Office, Mahaboob Palayam, Arasaradi, Kalavasal, GuruTheatre,Batlagundu,Nilakottai,Anaipatti,Karuthampatti,Sholavanthan, Chekkaroorani and Thirumangalam in respect of the BusTN-59-S-8043.

W.P.11274 of 2004:- Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondentsherein not to obstruct or create hindrance or trouble in theoperation of the Bus belonging to the petitioner on the course ofthe route Viz. Madurai Central Bus stand to Dindigul Via. DailyThanthi Office, Mehaboob Palayam, Arasaradi, Keelavasal, Gurutheatre, Kumaram, Alanganallur, Palamedu, Vellalapatti, Mugaiyur,Gopalpatti with independent trip between Madurai to Batlagundu ViaDaily thanthi Office, Mehaboob Palayam, Arasaradi, Keelavasal Guru theatre, Kumaram, Alanganallur, Thanichiyam Cross, Andipatti,Travellors Bungalow. Vadipatti, Pandiyarajapuram touchingSholavanthan and Madurai to Batlagundu via. Daily Thanthi Office,Mehboob Palayam, Arasaradi, Keelavasal, Guru Theatre, Kumaram, Alanganallur, Thanichiyam Cross, Andipatti, Pandiyarajapuram,Pallapatti, Nilakkottai, without touching Sholavanthan in respect ofthe Bus TN-59-S-9625.

W.P.11275 of 2004:- Writ of mandamus directing the Respondentsherein not to obstruct or create hindrance or trouble in theoperation of the Bus belonging to the petitioner on the course ofthe route viz. Madurai Central Bus stand to Natham Viz. DailyThanthi Office, Mehaboob Palayam, Arasaradi, Kalavasal, GuruTheatre, Alanganallur, Palamedu, G. Vellalapatti, Mulaiyur,Erumanaickenpatti in respect of the Bus TN-59-S-5429.

W.P.1152 of 2005:- Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondentsfrom obstructing or creating hindrance or trouble in theoperation of the Bus. No.TN-58-H-4024 belonging to the petitioneron the course of the route Madurai Central Bus stand (Periyar Busstand) to Krishnapuram (Via) Usilampatti and IST betweenKrishnapuram to Andipatti.

W.P.3092 of 2005:- Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondentsfrom obstructing or creating hindrance or trouble in theoperation of the Bus. bearing Reg. No.TN-58-U-7749 belonging tothe petitioner on the course of the route Madurai Central Bus stand(Periyar Bus stand) to Periyakulam (Via) Melakal, Sholavandan,Mattaparai, Anaipatti, Nilakkottai, Batlagundu, Thummalpatti,Genguvarpatti and Devadhanapatti.

W.P.3817 of 2004:- Writ of certiorarified Mandamus calling forthe records of the first respondent made in Letter No.9239/F/2002-14dated 6.2.2004 and quash the same and forebear the second respondentfrom interfering with the operation of the petitioner's vehiclebearing Regn.No.TN 67/D 0084, plying on the route Madurai toMudukulathur (via) Avniapuram, Kariapatty and Aruppukottai fromusing Mattuthavani Bus stand (via) Perunkudi, Avanipuram,therkuvasal and Theppakulam from using the Mattuthavani bus standfor both upward and downward journeys.

W.P.No.3818 of 2004:- Writ of certiorarified Mandamus callingfor the records of the first respondent made in LetterNo.9239/F/2002-14 dated 6.2.2004 and quash the same and forebear thesecond respondent from interfering with the operation of thePetitioner's Vehicle bearing Regn.No.TN 67/D 0084, plying on theroute Madurai to Mudukulathur (via) Avniapuram, Kariapatty andAruppukottai from using Mattuthavani Bus stand (via) Perunkudi,Avaniapuram, Therkuvasal and Theppakulam from using the Mattuthavanibus stand for both upward and downward journeys.

W.P.4301 of 2004:- Writ of certiorarified Mandamus calling forthe records on the file of the first respondent made in LetterNo.9239/F/2002-14 dated 6.2.2004 and quash the same and forbear thesecond respondent from Interferring with the operation of thepetitioner's vehicle bearing Regn.No.TN-67-D-7273 plying on theroute "Madurai Periyar Bus stand to Kalugumalai " via, Virudhunagar,sivakasi and Vice-versa.

W.P.4321 of 2004:- Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling forthe records of the first respondent made in Letter No.9239/F/2002-14 dated 6.2.2004 and quash the same and forebear the secondrespondent from interfering with the operation of the petitioner'sVehicle bearing Regn.No.TN 67/C2256 plying on the route Madurai toVadakkunatham, (Via) Avanlapuram, Kariapatty and Arupukottai fromusing Mattuthavani Bus stand (via) Perunkudi, Avaniapuram,Therkuvasal and Theppakulam and from using the Mattuthavani Busstand for both upward and downward journeys.

W.P.4322 of 2004:- Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling forthe records of the first respondent made in Letter No.9239/F/2002-14dated 6.2.2004 and quash the same and forbear the second respondentfrom interfering with the operation of the Petitioner's Vehiclebearing Regn.No.TN 67/C, 2773 plying on the route Madurai toIrukkankudi (Via) Avniapuram, Kariapatti and Aruppukottai from usingMattuthavani Bus stand via, perunkudi, Avaniapuram, Therkuvasal andTheppakulam from using the Mattuthavani bus stand for both upwardand downward journeys.

W.P.4585 of 2004:- writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling forthe records of the first respondent made in Letter No.9239/F/2002-14dated 6.2.2004 and quash the same and forebear the second respondentfrom intefering with the operation of the petitioner's Vehiclebearing Regn.TN 67/D 3466 plying on the route Madurai toAruppukottai (via) Avaniapuram and Kariapatty from usingMattuthavani Bus stand (via) Perunkudi, Avaniapuram. Therkuvasaland Theppakulam from using the Mattuthavani bus stand for bothupward and downward journeys.

W.P.4586 of 2004:-Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling forthe records of the first respondent made in letter No.9239/F/2002-14dated 6.2.2004 and quash the same and forebear the second respondentfrom interfering with the operation of the petitioner's Vehiclebearing Regn.No.TN67/D0082, plying on the route Madurai to Kamuthi,(via) Avniapuram, Kariapatty and Aruppukottai from usingMattuthavani Bus stand (via) Perunkudi, Avaniapuram, Therkuvasal andTheppakulam from using the Mattuthavani bus stand for both upwardand downward journeys.

W.P.4587 of 2004:- Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent made in Letter No.9239/F/2002-14dated 6.2.2004 and quash the same and forebear the second respondentfrom interfering with the operation of the petitioner's Vehiclebearing Regn.No.TN67/2226 plying on the route Madurai toIrukkankudi, (via) Avniapuram, Kariapatty and Aruppukottai fromusing Mattuthavani Bus stand (via) Perunkudi, Avaniapuram,Therkuvasal and Theppakulam from using the Mattuthavani bus standfor both upward and downward journeys.

W.P.4588 of 2004:- Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling forthe records of the first respondent made in letter No.9239/F/2002-14dated 6.2.2004 and quash the same and forebear the second respondentfrom interfering with the operation of the petitioner's Vehiclebearing Regn.No.TN67/F7206 plying on the route Madurai toEttayapuram, (via) Avniapuram, Kariapatty and Aruppukottai fromusing Mattuthavani Bus stand (via) Perunkudi, Avaniapuram,Therkuvasal and Theppakulam from using the Mattuthavani bus standfor both upward and downward journeys.

W.P.4589 of 2004:- Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling forthe records of the first respondent made in letter No.9239/F/2002-14dated 6.2.2004 and quash the same and forebear the second respondentfrom interfering with the operation of the petitioner's Vehiclebearing Regn.No.TN67/3696 plying on the route Madurai to Perunali(via) Avniapuram, Kariapatty and Aruppukottai from usingMattuthavani Bus stand (via) Perunkudi, Avaniapuram, Therkuvasal andTheppakulam from using the Mattuthavani bus stand for both upwardand downward journeys.

W.P.4409 of 2004:- Writ of certiorarified Mandamus calling forthe records on the file of first respondent made in LetterNo.9239/F/2002-14 dated 6.2.2004 and quash the same and forbearingthe 2nd respondent from interferring with the operation of thepetitioner's vehicle bearing Regn.No.TN67-D-4369 plying on the routeMadurai periyar Bus stand to Rajapalayam.

W.P.14286 of 2004:- Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or any otherappropriate writ or order or direction in the nature of a writcalling for the records of the first respondent relating to9239/F/2002-14 dated 6.2.2004 and quash the same and consequentlyforebear the second respondent from interferring with the operationof my vehicle No.TN-67/R-5081 plying on the route Thayilpatti toMadurai periyar Bus stand and vice versa.

W.P.2363 of 2001:- Certiorarified Mandamus calling for therecords pertaining to the impugned order passed by the firstrespondent dated 25.1.2001 in Na.Ka.No.D2/89943/2000 and to quashthe same, consequently forbear the respondents from implementing the impugned order.

W.P.6635 of 2006:- Writ of Mandamus or any other order ordirection in the nature of a writ directing the 3rd respondent totake proper action on the petitioner representations given to the3rd respondent on 27.2.2004 and 30.5.2006 and solve the trafficcongestion of Madurai city by diverting all the buses South bound tostart and terminate at Mattuthavani bus stand using the ring-road;and close down the Palanganatham and Arappalayam bus stands formofussil buses permanently and thus render justice.

W.P.2524 of 2004:- Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondentsfrom obstructing or creating hindrance or trouble in the operationof bus bearing Regn.No.TN-58/F-6881 belonging to the petitioner onthe course of the route Madurai central Bus stand (Periyar Busstand) to Ramanaickanpatti (via) Arasaradi, Melakkal, sholavandan,Anaipatti, etc, with Ist between Madurai Central Bus stand (PeriyarBus stand) and Ganguvarpatti (via) Arasaradi, Melakkal, Sholavandan,etc.

Writ of certiorarified calling for the records of the thirdrespondent in R.P.No.41/2001/A6, R.P.79/2001/A6, R.P.95/2001,R.P.82/2001, R.P.87/2001,R.P. 73/2001, R.P.72 /2001/A6, R.P.93 and98 /2001/ A6, R.P.92 /2001,R.P.91/2001, R.P.81/2001, R.P.94/2001,A6, R.P.71/2001, R.P.78/2001, R.P.80/2001/A6, R.P.70/2001/A6,R.P.100/2001,R.P.98/2001,R.P.84/2001/A6,R.P.86/2001/A6,RP.88/2001/A6,R.P.74/2001,R.P.85/2001/A6,R.P.83/2001/A6,respectively dated 19.1.2001 respectively in W.Ps.26300 and 26301 of2001, W.Ps.463, 464, 465, 466, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471, 472, 473,474, 475, 476 of 2002 and Wps.4086, 4087, 4088, 4089, 4090, 4091,4092, 4093 of 2002 respectively.

W.P.NO.26039 of 2003:- Writ of certiorarified Mandamus callingfor the records relating to the order of the second respondent inR.P.No.41 of 2001 dated 9.11.2001 and quash the same andconsequently direct the respondents to implement the order of thethird respondent in R.No.63052/A3/200 dated 30.10.2000.

For Respondent : Mr.R. Viduthalai Advocate General for Mr. Edwin Prabhakar Respondent-2: Mr. Rajnish Pathiyal (TNSTC)

COMMON JUDGMENT

P.K. MISRA, J

The dispute raised in these two batches of writ petitionsis a fall out of establishing Mattuthavani bus stand within thelimits of Madurai. Initially, there was one bus stand withinMadurai, which was known as Periyar Bus Stand. Subsequently,another bus stand known as Anna Bus commenced at a place on theeastern direction of Periyar Bus stand, which was intended to beused by the private operators and transport Corporation busescatering to the need of the travelers from Trichy, Sivagangai andRamnad. The establishment of such additional Bus stand waschallenged in Revision Petition No.570 of 1981 by The Bus Owners'Association and the Revisional Authority observed that the approvalgranted by the Regional Transport Authority to the additional busstand was invalid. However, it is not disputed that as a matter offact the additional bus stand known as Anna Bus Stand becameoperational after sometime. Thereafter, by press release dated25.12.1992, two more bus stands were made functional known as'Palanganatham Bus Stand', which was on the South West of PeriyarBus stand, and 'Arapalayam Bus Stand', which was towards North Westof Periyar Bus Stand. Buses coming from Aruppukottai andRajapalayam Sectors (from Southern side of Madurai) were directed tooperate from Palanganatham Bus Stand and buses coming from Dindugul,Theni and Coimbatore were directed to operate from Arapalayam BusStand. Subsequently the Commissioner, Madurai Corporation,initiated the proposal for establishing an integrated bus stand at aplace known as 'Mattuthavani' and applied for approval of the busstand at 'Mattuthavani' and by notification dated 24.5.1999 theRegional Transport Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'RTA'),Madurai accorded temporary recognition to the newly constructedintegrated bus stand for a period of six months. It was indicatedin such notification that the mofussil buses starting andterminating at Anna Bus Stand shall operate from the new bus standand similarly the express bus stand functioning from near Periyarbus stand will also be shifted to the new integrated bus stand.Subsequently, by way of Press release on 26.5.2000, the RTA, Maduraidirected all the Aruppukottai sector buses operating fromPalanganatham Bus Stand to go to Mattuthavani bus stand via., SouthGate, Teppakulam, Anna Nagar. This arrangement was continuing till 1.11.2000. However, by proceedings of the RTA dated 30.10.2000 itwas directed that no mofussil bus shall ply from Palanganatham BusStand. It was further directed as follows :-

"2.(i) All the mofussil buses plying fromThirumangalam side shall take diversion at the Innner RingRoad intersection at Kappalur and reach the new integratedbus stand at Mattuthavani via. the Inner Ring Road. Nomofussil bus shall ply beyond Kappalur towards MaduraiCity.

ii) All the mofussil buses coming from Thirumangalamside crossing Madurai in their journey towards ArappalayamBus Stand and from there to various places shall takediversion at Kappalur intersection, proceed to newIntegrated Bus Stand at Mattuthavani and from there toArappalayam Bus Sand via. Goripalayam, Simmakkal, MaduraiCoats Bridge. The same route course is to be followed inthe return journey also. They shall not proceed beyondKappalur towards Thiruparankundram side on any account.

iii) All the mofussil buses coming from Thirumangalamside and proceeding towards Melur crossing Madurai, shalltake diversion at Kappalur and proceed to new IntegratedBus Stand at Mattuthavani via. Inner Ring Road. The sameroute course is to be followed in the return journey also.

iv) All the mofussil buses coming from Kariapatti sideshall take diversion at Inner Ring Road intersection nearMandela Nagar and proceed to new Integrated Bus Stand atMattuthavani via. Inner Ring Road and vice versa. On anyaccount they shall not proceed beyond Mandela Nagar towardsPerungudi side.

v) All the mofussil buses coming from Aruppukottaiside crossing Madurai and Proceeding towards Theni andDindigul directions shall take diversion at Inner Ring Roadintersection at Mandela Nagar to reach new Integrated BusStand at Mattuthavani and from there proceed to ArappalayamBus Stand via. Goripalayam, Simmakkal and Madura CoatsBridge. The same route course is to be followed in thereturn journey also.

vi) All the mofussil buses coming from Aruppukottaiside and proceeding towards Melur and Sivagangai crossingMadurai, shall take diversion at Mandela Nagar and proceedto new Integrated Bus Stand at Mattuthavani via., InnerRing Road. This route course is to be followed in thereturn journey also."This order of RTA was made effective from 1.11.2000.Subsequently, however, on 25.1.2001, a modified order was passed tothe following effect :- "A) The buses having terminus a quo points atVirudhunagar, Sivakasi, Sathur, T. Kallupatti, Saptur,Vathrayiruppu, M. Kallupatti, Elkumalai, Analkaraipatti,Koompatti and Rajapalayam and coming to Madurai shall reachIntegrated Bus Stand (via) Kappalur Ring Road junction,Thirunaga, Thiruparankundram Bye Pass Road, Palanganathamjunction, Dindigul Bye-Pass road, Kalavasal junction, GuruTheatre, Alamaram, Thathaneri, Sellur, Thevar statue,Thallakulam and the District Court.The above buses shall stop only at the followingstopping places.

1. Thiruparankundram Park

2. Palanganatham junction

3. Kalavasal4. Alamaram5. Kalpalam Membalam junction

6. District Court

The above buses while leaving the Integrated Bus Standtowards the above respective destination shall go (via)Meenakshi Mission Hospital, Melur Ring Road junction,Pandikoil Ring Road junction, Viraganur Ring Road junction,Nedungulam Ring Road junction, Mandela Nagar Ring Roadjunction and Kappalur Ring Road (via) Thirumangalam.

B)The buses having terminus a quo point atAruppukottai and coming to Madurai shall reach theIntegrated Bus Stand through the existing course namely(via) Mandela Nagar Ring Road junction, Nedungulam RingRoad junction, Viraganur Ring Road junction (turning leftside), Theppakulam, PTR Bridge, Anna Nagar, Melamadaijunction and Lake View Road.

The above buses shall stop only at the followingstopping places;

1. Mariamman Theppakulam2. Anna Nagar near Ambika Theatre3. Melamadai junction

The above buses while leaving the Integrated Bus Stand forAruppukottai shall go (via) Meenakshi Mission Hospital,Melur Ring Road junction, Pandikoil Ring Road junction,Viraganur Ring Road junction, Nedungulam Ring Road junctionand Mandela Nagar Ring Road junction.

...

D) All other mofussil buses including State ExpressTransport Corporation buses (other than those mentioned inpara A, B, C above) while coming to Madurai and crossingMadurai City shall use only the Ring Road in both directions."

2. The aforesaid proceedings dated 25.1.2001 was challengedby several operators by filing R.P.Nos.41,70 to 74, 78 to 96, 98 to100 of 2001. The main contentions raised were to the effect thatsuch proceedings were contrary to the provisions contained inSection 72(2)(xxii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafterreferred to as "the Act") inasmuch as notice period of one month ascontemplated was not issued and such order was in violation of Rule246 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules (hereinafter referred toas "the Rules"). On the side of the contesting respondents in thosecases, it was contended that the main order of the RTA dated30.10.2000 had become final as such order had not been challengedand such order had been implemented and the subsequent impugnedorder was merely a modified order, which cannot be challengedwithout challenging the main order. It was also indicated that suchchanges were effected in order to relieve the traffic congestion.It is also pointed out that an Integrated bus stand had beennotified and therefore issuing a direction to the operators toproceed to public stand or bus stand was valid. Before the StateTransport Appellate Transport also reliance seems to have beenplaced on Section 115 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Ultimately theSTAT by order dated 9.11.2001 allowed all the revisions and setaside the order dated 25.1.2001 and remanded the matter to the RTAwith a direction to follow the procedure contemplated under Section72(2)(xxii) of the Act and Rule 246 of the Rules. Such order of theSTAT has been challenged by the Commissioner, Madurai Corporation,by filing the following writ petitions, namely, W.P.Nos. 463 to 476,4086 to 4093, 26300, 26311 of 2002 and 26039 of 2003.

3. While such writ petitions were pending, the TransportSecretary had issued a letter dated 6.2.2004 addressed to differentofficials including the Collector, Madurai and the Commissioner,Corporation of Madurai enclosing copy of the minutes of the meetingheld on 20.8.2003. The relevant portion of the minutes of themeeting is extracted hereunder :- "3. The Transport Secretary explained the position ofthe Palanganatham Bus stand and the present operation ofbuses at Maduai.4. Since the private operator buses are permitted tooperate inside Madurai city to reach Mattuthavani Bus standvia Periyar, Simmakal, public prefer only the privatebuses. The occupancy ratio of STU buses has come downresulting the revenue loss of about Rs.2 crore per month.To avoid the above revenue loss and inconvenience topassengers, Transport Secretary suggested to re-open thePalanganatham Bus Stand so that all South Bound bushes cantake trips from Palanganatham itself (including private

operators).

5. Law Secretary also emphasized that in violation ofthe High Court order, the private operator buses areallowed inside Madurai city - via. Periar bus stand. It isalso informed that the RTA, Madurai order directing thebuses from Palanganatham Bus stand to Mattuthavani Busstand is not permissible under Section 72(2) and Sec.115 ofM.V. Act.

6. After elaborate discussion, it was decided that asa trial measure to permit all the 85 private buses toterminate and emanate from Palanganatham Bus stand itselfin accordance with the interim order of STAT and High Courtby re-opening the old palanganatham Mufassil Bus stand forthem. Further, the STU buses can be allowed inside MaduraiCity via Periyar Bus Stand to reach Mattuthavani Bus standas permitted by the R.T.A. and in the return trips thevehicle shall be operated via Ring road towards Southdirection. The position may be reviewed after a month."

4. This communication, including the minutes, is thesubject matter of the challenge in W.P.Nos.3817 & 3818 of 2004.

5. Initially, these two writ petitions (W.P.Nos.3817 and3818 of 2004) were filed at the instance of the Bus Operatorsoperating their buses towards Southern side, namely, towardsVirudhunagar and Aruppukottai and certain interim directions wereissued. Subsequently, other bus operators operating from othersectors have filed several writ petitions seeking for Mandamus.Most of the writ petitions filed in Madurai Bench of Madras HighCourt have been transferred to the Principal Bench and have beenheard along with the other writ petitions.

6. The contentions raised by private operators in suchsubsequent batch of writ petitions are similar to the contentionsraised by the operators in the Revision Petitions which have beenfiled before the STAT and which had been accepted by the STAT underthe impugned orders which have been challenged by the MaduraiCorporation.

7. In the above background, the contentions, which arenecessary to be dealt with, are as follows :-The impugned orders passed by the RTA have the effect ofmodifying the permit conditions. In this context, the contention ofthe operators at Tirumangalam and Virudhunagar sectors is to theeffect that as per their original permit conditions they wererequired to go to Palanganatham bus stand from Kappalur. Suchportion of the route is now deleted and on the other hand such

operators are now asked to proceed towards Mattuthavani bus stand bytaking a different route not contemplated in the original permit.Moreover, such a new route covers a distance of about 27.2 kms,which is in excess of 24 kms. and thus contrary to the provisionscontained in Section 72(2)(xxii) as well as the provisions containedin Rule 246. Moreover, the RTA has not complied with the principlesof natural justice inasmuch as the private operators had not beengiven any notice.

The operators operating from Aruppukottai sector have alsoraised similar contentions, save and except the fact that in theircase the modified route covers a distance of 17.5 kms. Theoperators from other sectors have not highlighted any particulargrievance.

8. On the other hand, the Madurai Corporation, which hasfiled the writ petitions challenging the order of the STAT hascontended that modification is only implementation of theproceedings of the RTA whereunder Mattuthavani bus stand wasdeclared as integrated bus stand and, therefore, all the busoperators are required to go to Mattuthavani bus stand as per thedirections now issued, which are only inevitable consequences. Ithas been further submitted that while considering the matter,various representatives representing various Bus Owners'Associations had been heard and, therefore, it cannot be said thatprinciples of natural justice had been violated and there has beensubstantial compliance with the provisions contained in Rule 245(f)and no individual notice was required to be given. It is furthersubmitted that since the permit-holder is required to follow Section72(2)(xx) and Rule 245(i), once a bus station is specified, thepermit-holder is required to use such bus station and to that extentthe route permit can be taken to be modified.

9. Learned Advocate General appearing for RTA, apart fromadopting the submissions made by the Addl. Solicitor General, whowas appearing on behalf of Madurai Corporation, has also submittedthat the procedure contemplated in Rule 245(f) was only optionaland, at any rate, such procedure being directory and there beingsubstantial compliance, the order passed by the RTA should be upheldand that of the STAT should be set aside.

10. To appreciate the contentions raised by variouscounsels, it is now necessary to notice the relevant provisions ofthe Act and the Rules.

According to Section 2(40), "stage carriage" means a motorvehicle constructed or adapted to carry more than six passengerseither for the whole journey or for stages of the journey.

As per Section 66, occurring in Chapter V relating to control of

transport vehicles, no owner of a motor vehicle can use a vehicle asa transport vehicle in a public place save in accordance with theconditions of a permit granted or countersigned by appropriateauthority authorising the owner the use of the vehicle in that placein the manner in which the vehicle is being used.

Section 69 envisages filing of application for permit before theRegional Transport Authority of the region in which the vehicle isproposed to be used. Under Section 70, an application for a permitin respect of a stage carriage is required to contain among otherthings the route or routes or the area or areas to which theapplication relates. Under Section 72(1), a Regional TransportAuthority may grant a stage carriage permit in accordance with theapplication or with such modifications as it deems fit or refuse togrant such a permit. Proviso to Section 72(1) contemplates that nosuch permit shall be granted in respect of any route or area notspecified in the application.

"72(2) The Regional Transport Authority, if it decidesto grant a stage carriage permit, may grant the permit fora stage carriage of a specified description and may,subject to any rules that may be made under this Act,attach to the permit any one or more of the followingconditions, namely:-

(i) - that the vehicles shall be used only in aspecified area, or on a specified route or routes;. . .

(iv) that copies of the time-table of the stagecarriage approved by the Regional Transport Authority shallbe exhibited on the vehicles and at specified stands andhalts on the route or within the area;. . .

(vi) that within municipal limits and such other areasand places as may be prescribed, passengers or goods shallnot be taken up or set down except at specified points.

(xx) that any specified bus station or sheltermaintained by Government or a local authority shall be usedand that any specified rent or fee shall be paid for suchuse.. . .

(xxii) that the Regional Transport Authority may,after giving notice of not less than one month,- (a) vary the conditions of the permit; (b) attach to the permit further conditions:

Provided that the conditions specified in pursuance ofclause (i) shall not be varied so as to alter the distance

covered by the original route by more than 24 kilometres,and any variation within such limits shall be made onlyafter the Regional Transport Authority is satisfied thatsuch variation will serve the convenience of the public andthat it is not expedient to grant a separate permit inrespect of the original route as so varied or any partthereof;". . .

11. As per Rule 3(u), "Public stand" means any standmaintained by the Government, local authority or any State TransportUndertaking or other body and notified under rule 245 by theRegional Transport Authority as a public stand for the use of stagecarriages, contract carriages or goods carriages, as the case maybe.

The relevant portion of Rule 245 of Tamil Nadu Motor VehiclesRules is quoted hereunder :- "245. Provision of public stands for public servicevehicles.- (a) The local authority shall apply to theRegional Transport Authority for approval of any scheme forconstruction of a public stand . . .(b) On receipt of the application referred to in sub-rule(1), the Regional Transport Authority may, inconsultation with such other authority as it deemsdesirable and having regard to the interest of the publicgenerally, approve the scheme with or without modificationor refuse to approve the scheme. Every order approving thescheme with or without modification shall remain in forcefor three years or such shorter period as may be specifiedin the order and may be renewed from time to time by theRegional Transport Authority by a like order for a furtherperiod of not more than three years at a time:

Provided that where the Regional Transport Authorityrefuses to approve the scheme, it shall after giving anopportunity of making its representation if any, and afterrecording in writing the reasons for such refusal,communicate a copy of the order to the local authorityconcerned.

. . .

(d) The local authority shall report to the RegionalTransport Authority when the scheme has been implemented.On receipt of such a report, the Regional TransportAuthority, may after such enquiry or inspection as itthinks fit, notify the stand as a public stand for theparticular class of public service vehicles for which thescheme was approved. A copy of such notification shall beput on the notice board at the Office of the RegionalTransport Authority.

(f) The Regional Transport Authority may give an opportunity to the permit holders of the existing stagecarriage services in the area while approving a publicstand or at the time of its renewal.

(h) The Regional Transport Authority may notifyseparate stands for stage carriages and contract carriages.(i) When a public stand within the limits of a localauthority has been notified by the Regional TransportAuthority, any public service vehicle of that class forwhich the stand is intended shall make use of that standfor purposes of stationing the vehicle for picking up orsetting down passengers:

Provided that where there are two or more publicstands notified by the Regional Transport Authority for anyparticular class of vehicles within the limits of the samelocal authority, it shall be sufficient that in the case ofstage carriages, the stand specified by the RegionalTransport Authority from time to time, and in any othercase any one of the stand is made use of by such vehicle.. . . "

246. Fixing or altering stages for the stagecarriages.- In the case of stage carriages, the TransportAuthority shall after consultation with such otherauthority as it may deem desirable and after hearing therepresentation of the operators concerned fix or alterstage of all bus routes. The distance of each stage shallnot ordinarily -(a) exceed 5 kilometres in the case of metropolitan,city and town services.(b) exceed 8 kilometres or be less than 4 kilometresin the case of ordinary services; and

(c) be less than 25 kilometres in the case of expressservice.Explanation.- When a passenger gets into or gets downfrom a stage carriage at a place lying in between thestages, fare may be collected from him from the stagepreceding the place where he gets into the bus to the stagesucceeding the place where he gets down."

12. As per Section 72(2), the Regional Transport Authoritymay attach to the permit any one or more of the conditions envisagedin clause (i) to (xxiv). Clause (xx) of Section 72(2) is one suchcontemplated condition which can be attached, which provides thatany specified bus station maintained by Government or a localauthority shall be used. As per Webster's new World Dictionary &Thesaurus, 'station' means,a regular stopping place, with a shelter,platform, etc., as on a bus line or railroad b) the building or

buildings at such a place, for passengers, etc.

As per Concise Oxford Dictionary, 9[th] Edition, the expression"Bus stop" means a regular stopping place of a bus.

"Bus stand" means a centre specially in a town, where buses(specially long distance buses) depart and arrive.

13. As per clause (i) of Section 72(2), the vehicle isrequired to be used only in a specified area or on a specifiedroute. As per clause (xxii), the Regional Transport Authority mayafter giving notice of not less than one month, vary condition ofthe permit or attach to the permit further conditions. The proviso,however, contemplates that the conditions specified in clause (i)shall not be varied so as to alter the distance covered by theoriginal route by more than 24 kms. It also further contemplatesthat variation within such 24 kms shall be made only after RegionalTransport Authority satisfied that such variation will serve theconvenience of the public and that it is not expedient to grant aseparate permit in respect of the varied route or part thereof.

14. Rule 245 contains the provision of public stands forpublic service vehicles, which would obviously include the stagecarriages. The application for any scheme for construction of apublic stand is required to be made to the Regional TransportAuthority, which is to consider by keeping in view the aspectsenumerated in Rule 245. Once such approval is given, the localauthority is required to complete the scheme and thereafter requiredto report to the Regional Transport Authority that the scheme hasbeen implemented. On receipt of such report, the Regional TransportAuthority may notify a stand as a public stand for particular classof public service vehicles. Such order approving the use of thepublic stand with or without modification shall remain in force forthree years or even shorter period if it is so specified in theorder and it can be renewed from time to time for a further periodof not more than three years at a time.

As per Rule 245(f), the Regional Transport Authority may give anopportunity to the permit holders while approving a public stand orat the time of its renewal.

15. As per Section 72(2)(i), the condition invariablyattached to permit is relating to a specified route or routes. Nodoubt "route" means a line of travel which specifies the highwaywhich may be traversed by a motor vehicle from one terminus toanother. (In a generic sense it may be understood that if the bushas to start from Trichy and the last terminus is Madurai, the routeremains the same and merely because the bus stand at Trichy orMadurai is changed, it cannot be said that route is changed.Because, ultimately one terminus continues to be Trichy and theother terminus continues to be Madurai. However, when by virtue of change of bus station, the bus is required to travel on a road notenvisaged in a permit, to that extent it can be said that the routeis changed.) As per Concise Oxford Dictionary, 9[th] Edition,"highway" means a public road.

16. Section 72(2)(xxii) empowers the Regional TransportAuthority to vary the conditions of the permit after giving noticeof not less than one month. The proviso to clause (xxii), however,envisages that such condition shall not be varied so as to alter thedistance covered by the original route not more than 24 kms. It hasbeen contended by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for MaduraiCorporation that as per clause (xx) any specified bus stationmaintained by a local authority is required to be used by theoperator. According to him, Rule 245 envisages for establishingpublic stand for any class of public service vehicle. At the timeof approval, opportunity of hearIng is given to all concerned andthereafter once such public stand is notified by the RTA ascontemplated in Section 245(b), the operator is bound to go to suchpublic stand.

17. In our opinion, even though in a normal case once apublic stand is notified, the operator is required to go to suchstand, wherein change of bus stand involves alteration of the route,opportunity is required to be given.

18. The next question is whether opportunity, which isrequired to be given, should be way of issuing individual notice tothe different bus operators or a general notice would be sufficient.

19. Chapter V of the Rules relates to Control of TransportVehicles. Rule 137 relating to service of communications isextracted hereunder :-

137. Service of communications.- (1) Any communicationissued by the Transport Authorities or the ExecutiveOfficers of such authorities or by the Government or by theTribunal in respect of matters falling under this chaptermay be served by the Executive officers of the TransportAuthorities or any other officer authorised by them in thisbehalf, by any one of the following methods, namely -(a) by delivery or tender of a copy of thecommunication to the addressee or his agent or the otherperson duly authorised to receive such communication on hisbehalf.

(b) by registered post:

Provided that if upon an attempt having been made toserve the communication by any of the above mentionedmethods, the serving officer is satisfied that theaddressee is avoiding service or that for any other reason,the communication cannot be served by any of the above mentioned methods the Executive Officer of the TransportAuthority concerned shall order the service of thecommunication by affixing a copy thereof on someconspicuous part of addressee's last place of business orgarage as notified by him or where the addressee habituallyresides and such service shall be as valid as if theaddressee has acknowledged in writing.(2) When the serving officer delivers or tenders acopy of the communication to the addressee personally or tohis agent or other person on his behalf, he shall requirethe signature of the person to whom the copy is sodelivered or tendered to and acknowledgement of a serviceendorsed on the original communication and such personshall comply with such requirement."

20. Since a specific method is contemplated in rule 137,the provisions contained in Rule 248 relating to fixing schedule oftiming and providing that it shall not be necessary to sendindividual notice of timing conference to the operators concernedand it shall be sufficient compliance if the notice giving theexisting and proposed schedule of timings, and the time, date andplace would be affixed in the notice board and the copy of thenotice sent to the applicant and the concerned State TransportUndertaking and bus owners Association of the district, may not beapplicable to the communications to be made in respect of othermatters. Therefore, notwithstanding the provisions in Rule 248 andnegativing the submission made by Mr.V.T. Gopalan, learned SeniorCounsel, we are of the opinion that notice is required to be issuedin accordance with Rule 137. However, it is made clear that even ifthe method of issuing notice as contemplated under Rule 137 isrequired to be followed, mere non-observance of such provision maynot be construed as vitiating any order, unless prejudice is shownto have been caused.

21. In the present case, it is not in doubt that at thetime when the scheme relating to establishing a public stand wasconsidered, general notice was issued and as a matter of fact manyof the representatives of the transport Associations haveparticipated. To that extent, it can be said that the provisionscontained in Rule 245, particularly 245(f), have been complied with.Therefore, by declaring Mattuthavani bus stand as a bus stand ofMadurai Corporation area as such cannot be said to be illegal orirregular in any way.

22. However, as it apparent from the submissions made bythe counsels appearing for all parties, the bus stand in questioncan be approached from different directions, that is to say, throughdifferent roads. The materials on record do not indicate that at the time when the bus stand was notified as a bus stand, the roadthrough which different sector bus operators to approach the busstand had also been specifically indicated. It appears that evenafter notifying the bus stand, different authorities including RTAhave been issuing various directions regarding the roads to be usedby different operators.

23. It is no doubt true that while considering which roadis to be used, the appropriate authority is required to considervarious factors including the question of congestion on the road,convenience of the pubic and, also while so deciding, the authoritycannot discriminate between similar types of public servicevehicles. For instance, if a particular road is found to be narrow,it would be quite reasonable for the authority to prohibit the userof heavy vehicles on such road. However, while doing so, theauthority is not expected to permit a heavy vehicle belonging to oneparticular organisation to use the very same road, while prohibitingsuch user by a similar vehicle belonging to some other person. Fromthe materials on record it appears that in the present case eventhough the public stand has been notified by following properprocedure, thereafter while changing the routes (roads) anyconsultation process has taken place. Moreover, the allegationsindicate as if the public service vehicles belonging to the StateTransport undertaking have been allowed to use particular roadswithin the city, whereas the same privilege has not been madeavailable to private operators. The basis for such differenttreatment is also not disclosed. On the other hand the minutes ofthe meeting held by the Secretary of the Transport Departmentindicates as if the decision is based on the consideration that theState Transport undertaking buses were sustaining loss and thereforesuch buses were allowed to ply through the city roads, whereas theprivate operators were asked to go through the outer ring road. Thelearned Advocate General has submitted that the letter dated6.2.2004 was issued with a view to meet the situation arising out ofthe various interim orders passed by the Courts and there won't beany necessity of such direction once all the matters are finalised.

24. A contention was raised on behalf of the operators thatin view of the provisions contained in Section 72(2)(xxii) thecondition of the permit to the effect that it shall be used only ona specified route as contemplated in Section 72(2)(i) shall not bevaried so as to alter the distance covered by the original route bymore than 24 kms and, therefore, by asking the operators to go to Mattuthavani bus stand on a particular road which has extendedthe route by more than 24 kms is not permissible.

25. As per Section 72(2), the Regional Transport Authoritymay grant permit for a stage carriage and attach to the permit anyone or more of the conditions contemplated in clause (i) to (xxiv).

However, as per Section 72(2), attaching of such condition issubject to any rules that may be under this Act.

26. Rule 245, which is part of the statutory rules,contemplates the provision for public stands for public servicevehicles. The conditions which are attached to the permit by virtueof Section 72(2) being subject to the Rules, it is obvious that whena provision for public stand for public service vehicles is made andthe stand is notified as a public stand for particular class ofparticular service vehicles, particular permit holder would berequired to go to such public stand and the fact that the distanceto be covered may be more than 24 kms cannot be a ground to refuseto go to such public stand. However, since it will have the effectof changing the route, opportunity of hearing is required to begiven, which is also contemplated in Rule 245(f). Both theprovisions are to be harmonized and Rule 245 being a specific ruleand since Section 72(2) itself has made it clear that condition canbe attached subject to any rule made under the Act, it is obviousthat public stand fixed under Rule 245 has to be reached throughparticular road to be specified by the appropriate authority.However, as already indicated, this should be done only after givingopportunity to the operators. While specifying the road to be used,it is obvious that the Regional Transport Authority is required tokeep in view all the relevant facts and circumstances including theconvenience of the public as well as the convenience orinconvenience, if any, of the operators.

27. Similarly a contention was raised that as per Rule 246,the distance of each stage should not exceed 5 km in the case ofmetropolitan, city and town services and should not exceed 8 kms orless than 4 kms in the case of ordinary services. However, as thelanguage itself indicates that it is ordinarily the rule to befollowed and there may be a situation which need not be followed.It is therefore obvious that in extra-ordinary situation, thedistance indicated can be exceeded or it can be less than thedistance indicated. It cannot be held as an inexorable rule that inno case the distance of each stage should be within the parametersindicated in various clauses of Rule 246.

(1) Once a scheme establishing a public stand has beenimplemented and report to that effect is submitted, the RegionalTransport Authority may notify the stand as a public stand forparticular class of public service vehicles for which the scheme wasapproved. However, the Regional Transport Authority is required togive an opportunity to the permit holders of the existing stage carriages while approving a public stand or at the time of itsrenewal.

(2) When a public stand within the limits of a local authorityhas been notified by the Regional Transport Authority, any publicservice vehicle of the class concerned is bound to make use of thatstand for the purposes of stationing the vehicle for picking up orsetting down passengers. Where there are two or more public standsnotified by the Regional Transport Authority, the stand specified bythe Regional Transport Authority for particular class of vehicle isrequired to be made use of by such vehicle. Where, however, thereare two or more public stands and the Regional Transport Authorityhas not specified a particular stand, any one of such notified standcan be made use of by such vehicle.

(3) Where by virtue of notifying a public stand the routebecomes altered, the Regional Transport Authority is also requiredto give opportunity to the concerned permit holders, if such alteredroute has not been contemplated at the time of notifying the publicstand. Where, however, such modified route was in contemplation andhad been so indicated at the time of establishing a public stand,obviously giving further opportunity would be redundant.

(4) The mere fact that by virtue of change in the public standthe altered route exceeds 24 kms, is not a ground to hold that thepermit holders need not go to the public stand in question and tothat extent the condition in the permit as contemplated in Section72(2)(xxii) can be subject to the condition contemplated in Section72(2)(xx) as well as the requirement under Rule 245.

(5) While identifying such road to reach the public stand, theconcept of not exceeding 24 kms should be kept in view and should befollowed as far as possible and only for good and adequate reason alonger road can be identified.

(6) The notice contemplated should be in accordance with Rule137. However, mere non-service of notice may not ipso factovitiates the proceedings, if the person aggrieved is not otherwiseprejudiced.

(7) While considering the matter, the Regional TransportAuthority cannot discriminate between the private operators and theState Transport Undertaking and merely because the State TransportUndertaking buses are plying, they cannot be treated differently ascompared to the private operators.

(8) It is open to the Regional Transport Authority to notifydifferent bus stands for buses coming from different directions,obviously keeping in view the convenience of the public and merely because the operators from a particular direction are allowed to usea particular bus stand cannot be a ground for the bus operatorscoming from a different direction to claim similar facility .There should not be any discrimination among the bus operatorssimilarly situated though there can be different provisions for busoperators who are not similarly situated.

(9) Since any condition in the permit can be changed, it wouldbe always open to any individual operator or group of operators toseek for any alteration in the route by filing application, whichcan always be considered by the Regional Transport Authority inaccordance with law.

29. In course of hearing, the learned counsels appearingfor the private operators had only concentrated on the bus routecoming from the direction of Aruppukottai and Thirumanagalam and itappears that no specific grievance had been raised by any counselrepresenting the bus operators from other directions, such asCoimbatore, Dindigul, Trichy, etc. In fact they had already actedupon the directions issued by the Regional Transport Authority andcame to Court long after interim orders were passed in the writpetitions filed by the Madurai Corporation or by the operatorscoming from Aruppukottai and Thirumangalam. Therefore, thedirections already issued by the Regional Transport Authority inrespect of such operators are not interfered with. So far as thebus operators coming from the southern side are concerned, theRegional Transport Authority is required to give opportunity ofhearing to such operators before specifying a particular route to befollowed to come to Mattuthavani bus stand and to return from suchbus stand. Till this matter is finalised, the arrangement asexisting on the date of the judgment by virtue of status quo ordershall continue only so far as those operators are concerned.

So far as other bus operators are concerned, the orders passedby the Regional Transport Authority shall become operationalforthwith and all interim orders, if any, are vacated. The mattershould be finalised as early as possible, preferably within a periodof three months from the date of receipt of the order. The writpetitions are disposed of accordingly. No costs.

Sd/-Asst. Registrar.

/true copy/

dpk

Sub Asst. Registrar.

To

1. The Regional Transport Authority,Madurai South, Madurai.

2. The Managing Director,Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation, Bye pass Road, Madurai-10.

3. The Secretary to Government,Transport Department,Fort St. George, Chennai-9.

4. The Inspector of Police,Traffice Police Station,Theppakulam, Madurai City,Madurai.

5. The Special Commissioner andSecretary to Government,Transport (E) Department,Fort St. George, Chennai-9.6. The Regional Transport Authority,Sivagangai.

7. The Regional Transport Authority,Madurai North at Madurai.

8. The District Collector cumRegional transport Authority,Madurai District, Madurai.

9. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal,High Court, Chennai.104.

10. The Regional Transport Officer,Regional Transport Office,Chokikulam, Madurai.

11. The SecretaryMinistry of Home Affairs,Government of Tamilnadu,Chennai.

12. The Transport CommissionerGovernment of Tamilnadu,Chepauk, Chennai .

13. The Commissioner of Police,Madurai City, Madurai.14. The CommissionerMadurai CorporationArignar Anna Maligai, Madurai.

6 ccs to Mr.M. Palani, Advocate, Sr. 64965 & 65006

1 cc to the Government Pleader, Sr. 65054

2 ccs to Mr.P. Srinivas, Advocate, Sr. 64986, 64976

2 ccs to Mr.C.R. Krishnamoorthy, Advocate, Sr. 64982

1 cc to Mr.V.R. Kamalanathan, Advocate, Sr. 649591 cc to Mr.S. Natarajan, Advocate, Sr. 65058

W.P.NOs.

17464 of 2004 & Batch

JSK (CO)kk 21/2compared by Pch,kk