Dismissed

Mavatta Bus Urimaiyalargal v. the Regional Transport

Madras HC8 Jun 2011WP/24655/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an election law context, but actually a service and employment case regarding bus routes, this court dismissed a writ petition filed by a bus operators' association challenging an order not to alter bus stages, holding the petition unmanifestable due to lack of individual operator claims and omission of merit.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed with no costs awarded to any of the parties.

Mavatta Bus Urimaiyalargal Vs the Regional Transport — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED:08.06.2011

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU

¶5

W.P.NO.24655 OF 2010

¶6

Mavatta Bus Urimaiyalargar Sangam Pollachi Saragam(Reg.No.64/2005)

¶7

rep. by Secretary V.Kalaiselvan 36, Rathinavinayagar Koil Street, Venkatesa Colony, Pollachi 642 001. ...Petitioner Vs. 1.The Regional Transport Authority, Pollachi at Coimbatore 2.The Regional Transport Officer, Udumalpet Road, Pollachi, Coimbatore District. ...Respondents

¶8

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified mandamus calling for the records on the file of the first respondent dated 22.09.2010 in R.No.23522/A2/2010 and quash the same and consequently directing the first respondent to alter the stage in accordance with the proceedings of the first respondent dated 30.07.1992 made in R.No.42583/A3/2001 insofar as it relates to the permits of the members of the petitioner Association alone is concerned.

¶9

For Petitioner: Mr.M.Krishnappan

¶10

The petitioner is an association of bus operators functioning in Pollachi Saragam represented by its Secretary. They have come forward to challenge the order dated 22.09.2010 passed by the first respondent, the Regional Transport Authority, Coimbatore at Pollachi and after setting aside the same, seeks for a direction

¶11

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

¶12

to the first respondent to alter the stages in accordance with the proceedings of the first respondent dated 30.07.1992 , in so far as it relates to the permit of the members of the petitionerassociation. Such an omni bus prayer made by the petitioner petitioner itself is not maintainable, except perusing the certificate of registration that it is a registered society and it has given general names of the members without giving further details as to what were the steps taken by them to implement the proceedings issued by the earlier Regional Transport Officer dated 30.07.1992.

¶13

It is the case of Mr.Krishnappan, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that by proceedings dated 30.07.1992, the first respondent opined that the number of new colonies have come up which requires alteration of stages including the stopping and the fare to be paid. Therefore, it was opined that the Executive Engineer (Highways & Rural works) Coimbatore along with other Assistant Divisional Engineers made a survey of the places and on the basis of said survey, the distance of the respective routes have been altered. Even though it was stated the said order was issued in terms of Section 246 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1989, there is nothing on record to show that any of the individual operators had taken any steps for altering the stages on the basis of the said order. However, the very same association filed W.P.No.1542 of 2006, merely after a period of 14 years from the date of earlier proceedings, seeking for a direction to the respondent to take steps to alter the distance of the route of the members of the petitioner's association, consequent upon the proceedings dated 30.07.1982. This Court, without going into merits of the allegations, gave a direction that the respondent should consider the representation of the petitioner dated 29.12.2005 (made after 13 years from the date of earlier proceedings) and dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law. It is, pursuant to the said direction issued by this Court, the respondent passed the impugned order dated 22.09.2010. In the impugned order, the first respondent stated that subsequent to the earlier proceedings, the Government had notified revised fare structure and in all the buses, the revised fares are being collected and it is also stated that distance might have been altered due to formation of four-way highway. Under the changed circumstances, the earlier proceedings issued by the Regional Transport Authority become redundant due to efflux of time. It is this order is under challenge in this writ petition.

¶14

On notice from this Court, the respondent have filed a counter affidavit dated 24.04.2011,. In the counter affidavit in Paragraph 7, it is stated that under Rule 246 of the Motor Vehicles Act in case of change of the bus stand or shifting of the bus stand,

¶15

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

¶16

each of the vehicle is issued with separate permit and they have a different course of line travel. Hence the route covered by each permit has to be applied for change in the route length with specific changes involved due to any changes made in the line of traffic."

¶17

Under the circumstances, the writ petition filed by the petitioner-association is not maintainable. However, Mr.Krishnappan, learned counsel drew the attention of this court the provisions under Section 246 of the Motor Vehicles Act and contended that, the said Section is wide and it does not take note of the circumstances set out in the impugned order and they have obligation to alter the routes if there is a variation of any route whatsoever. He also stated that the order passed in the year 1992 remains good and it cannot be held to be redundant due to efflux of time. However, this Court is not inclined to consider the case put up by the petitionerassociation. First of all, as rightly contended by the respondent, the proceedings dated 30.07.1982 has never put to test by any individual operator making any application for the purpose of altering the stage. As already stated, for each and every individual case, such a claim has to be considered and not on omni bus prayer. Secondly, it must be submitted that after 13 years, after the proceedings were issued, the petitioner-association has not filed any petition before this Court seeking for a direction from this Court to consider such a representation thereby reviving the same cause of action.

¶18

In this context, it is necessary to refer a decision reported in C.Jacob Vs. Director of Geology & Mining and another reported in 2008 AIR SCW 7233 = 2008(10) SCC 115, wherein the Supreme Court held that the Court must refrain from giving such a direction, so that, old cause of action cannot be revived. In any event, invocation of Section 246 of the Act cannot have any application to the case of this nature. Unless an individual operator sets out his grievance, their claims cannot be considered in a general fashion. In view of the above, no case is made out in the writ petition. The writ petition is misconceived and the same is dismissed. No costs.

¶19

Sd/Asst.Registrar. /true copy/

¶20

VJY

¶21

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

¶22

¶23

1.The Regional Transport Authority, Pollachi at Coimbatore

¶24

2.The Regional Transport Officer, Udumalpet Road, Pollachi, Coimbatore District.

¶25

1 cc to Government Pleader, Sr. 32977
1 cc to Ms.R. Suwarnalatha, Advocate, Sr. 32867
W.P.NO.24655 OF 2010
TS (CO)
kk 17/6

¶26

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

Mavatta Bus Urimaiyalargal v. the Regional Transport

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mavatta Bus Urimaiyalargal v. the Regional Transport

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D.Karunamoorthy, Vs Director of Medical and Rural

M. Gunachandran Vs the Authorised Officer &

K.Thulasi Vs a.Dhanam

T.Venkatachalam Vs Secretary to Government

Kannamani Vs the Secretary to Government

Erode District Bus Vs Insurance Regulatory and D