The petitioner sought an interstate transport permit for a specific route. The High Court held that under a Supreme Court Constitution Bench judgment, variation or grant of permits is impermissible for routes covered by an approved scheme, leading to dismissal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED:07.07.2017
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice ABDUL QUDDHOSE
W.P.No.17379 of 2004
M.O.Hassan Kuthoos Maricar Ltd., Rep. by its Director H.U. Saleem, No.1/1, Thomas Arul Street, Karaikal 609 602. .. Petitioner Vs 1.The State Transport Authority, Union Territory of Pondicherry, Pondicherry. 2.The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Pondicherry. .. Respondents 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.21/2002, 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 Madras (via) Karaikal, Porayar, Sirkali, Chidambaram and Cuddalore Pondicherry Marakkanam, Mahabalipuram Pudupattinam and Kovalam on merits and in accordance with law.
For Petitioner .. Mr.M.Palani For Respondents .. Mr.B.Nambi Selvam, Addl. Govt. Pleader (Pondicherry) ORDER
The writ petition has been filed to call for the records of the second respondent made in M.V. AP.No.21/2002, 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 in respect of the route Thirunallar to Pondicherry (via) Karaikal, Porayar, Sirkali, Chidambaram and Cuddalore on merits and in accordance with law.
2.The brief facts of the case are as follows:
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.21 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.
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:
"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."
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.
Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS IV)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
cla
To
W.P.No.17379 of 2004
ak(co)
aa01/08/2017
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court can grant an interstate transport permit variation for a route covered by an approved scheme constitutionally permissible variation of existing permit.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
G.T. Venkatasamy Reddy V. State Transport Authority And OthersRelied on¶13
G.T.VENKATASAMY REDDY V. STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS (2016 (8) SCC 402) · Who else cites this
M.O.Hassan Kuthoos Maricar Ltd.
The State Transport Authority, Union Territory of Pondicherry
The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Pondicherry
ABDUL QUDDHOSE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
