Dismissed

M.O.Hassan Kuthoos Maricar v. the State Transport Authority

Madras HC7 Jul 2017WP/17378/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the rejection of its application for an interstate transport permit. Citing a Supreme Court Constitutional Bench judgment holding that permit variation is impermissible after an approved scheme's publication, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's application for grant of interstate permit dismissed; no costs.

M.O.Hassan Kuthoos Maricar Vs the State Transport Authority — Property and Title | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED:07.07.2017

¶3

Coram

¶4

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶5

W.P.No.17378 of 2004

¶6

M.O.Hassan Kuthoos Maricar Ltd., Rep. by its Director Saleem, No.1/1, Thomas Arul Street, Karaikal 609 602. .. Petitioner Vs

¶7

1.The State Transport Authority, Union Territory of Pondicherry, Pondicherry. 2.The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Pondicherry. .. Respondents

¶8

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent made in M.V.AP.No.22/2002, dated 22.1.2004 in confirming the order of the first respondent made in No.2905/TD-TP1/Permit/202, dated 9.5.2002 and quash the same and direct the first respondent to consider and pass orders on the application of the petitioner for the grant of interstate permit in respect of the route Thirunallar to Pondicherry (via) Karaikal, Porayar, Sirkali, Chidambaram and Cuddalore on merits and in accordance with law.

¶9

For Petitioner .. Mr.M.Palani For Respondents .. Mr.B.Nambi Selvam, Addl. Govt. Pleader (Pondicherry) ORDER

¶10

The writ petition has been filed to call for the records of the second respondent made in M.V. AP.No.22/2002, dated 22.1.2004 in confirming the order of the first respondent made in No.2905/TD-TP1/Permit/202, dated 9.5.2022, quash the same and direct the first respondent to consider and pass orders on the application of the petitioner for the grant of interstate permit

¶11

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

¶12

in respect of the route Thirunallar to Pondicherry (via) Karaikal, Porayar, Sirkali, Chidambaram and Cuddalore on merits and in accordance with law.

¶13

2.The brief facts of the case are as follows:

¶14

The petitioner applied for an interstate permit to ply on the interstate route from Thirunallar to Pondicherry (via) Kariakal, Porayur, Sirkali, Chidambaram and Cuddalore. The said application was rejected by the first respondent by proceedings dated 09.05.2002. Against which, the petitioner preferred Appeal No.22 of 2002 on the file of the second respondent and the same was dismissed on 22.01.2004. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

¶15

3.When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that the issue involved in this writ petition is covered by a Constitutional Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in G.T.VENKATASAMY REDDY V. STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS (2016 (8) SCC 402) wherein, the Apex Court held that variation of permit after publication of approved scheme is impermissible. Paragraph 50 (g) of the Constitution Bench judgment, which is the relevant operative portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder:

¶16

"By virtue of the above, either a grant of a new permit or the variation of an existing permit of private operator cannot be ordered in respect of an area or route covered by an Approved Scheme."

¶17

4.The prayer sought in the writ petition is similar to the one stated above. Hence, the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court cited supra is squarely applicable to the instant writ petition.

¶18

In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court referred supra, the relief sought for in the writ petition cannot be granted by this Court. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶19

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS IV)

¶20

//True Copy//

¶21

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶22

cla

¶23

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

¶24

To 1.The State Transport Authority, Union Territory of Pondicherry, Pondicherry.

¶25

2.The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Pondicherry.

¶26

+1 cc to M/s.M.Palani Advocate sr 47585

¶27

W.P.No.17378 of 2004
ak(co)
aa01/08/2017

¶28

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

M.O.Hassan Kuthoos Maricar v. the State Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.O.Hassan Kuthoos Maricar v. the State Transport Authority

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

V. Balaji Vs

M.O.Hassan Kuthoos Maricar Vs the State Transport Authority

K.Muthusamy Vs the Special Officer

C.Sivaraman Vs the Commissioner Madurai