Allowed

K.Ramesh, v. the State Transport Appellate

Madras HC11 Jul 2022WP/5312/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the Tribunal quashing a suo motu route extension order by the Regional Transport Authority. Court restored the R.T.A. order after holding the Tribunal erred in declaring the Secretary lacked signing authority for such orders.

What did the court decide?

The order passed by the first respondent (Tribunal) is set aside and the order passed by the second respondent (R.T.A.) is restored.

K.Ramesh, Vs the State Transport Appellate — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.No.5312 of 2010

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 11.07.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

¶6

W.P.No.5312 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010

¶7

K.Ramesh

¶8

(Cause title amended vide order dated 25.01.2019 made in W.M.P.No.2161 of 2018

¶9

in W.P.No.5312 of 2010)

¶10

... Petitioner

¶11

Vs.

¶12

The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, High Court Campus, Chennai.

¶13

The Regional Transport Authority, Tiruchirappalli.

¶14

M.P.Sugumaran ... Respondents

¶15

Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, pleased to issue a writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the first respondent in M.V.R.P.No.16 of 2006 dated 28.10.2009 and to quash the same.

¶16

For Petitioner : M/s.Radha Gopalan for Mr.K.Hariharan

¶17

1/6

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

W.P.No.5312 of 2010

¶20

For R1	: Tribunal
For R2	: M/s.P.Sanjai Gandhi
	Government Advocate
For R3	: Mr.R.Srinivasalu

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by

¶23

the first respondent in M.V.R.P.No.16 of 2006 dated 28.10.2009 setting aside

¶24

the order passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Tiruchirappalli dated 29.09.2004.

¶25

According to the petitioner, the petitioner is a stage carriage operator operating a stage carriage plying on the route Tiruchirappalli to Pallapatty. Based on the representation of public, the second respondent/ Regional Transport Authority by exercising suo motu power under Section 72(2)(xxii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, ordered for further extension of route, so as to touch Tharagampatti from Mylampatti. The second respondent also imposed a condition that the petitioner shall maintain existing timings and should not collect extra fare.

¶26

Aggrieved by the order passed by the second respondent, the

¶27

2/6

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

W.P.No.5312 of 2010

¶30

third respondent had filed an appeal before the first respondent mainly on the ground that the order passed by the second respondent was not signed by the Regional Transport Authority and it was only signed by the Secretary to the Regional Transport Authority. It was the main contention of the third respondent before the first respondent/Tribunal that the Secretary to Regional Transport Authority has no power to exercise suo motu power under Section 72(2)(xxii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Thus, the first respondent/Tribunal had set aside the order passed by the Regional Transport Authority stating that the Secretary of Regional Transport Authority has no power to exercise suo motu power available to the second respondent. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has come up with this writ petition.

¶31

The learned counsel for the petitioner produced the certified copy of the order passed by the second respondent/ Regional Transport Authority dated 29.09.2004.

¶32

3/6

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

W.P.No.5312 of 2010

¶35

The second respondent has filed a Counter stating that on

¶36

representation from the general public seeking extension of the service from Mylampatti to Tharagampatti, the second respondent exercising his power to execute suo motu power under Section 72(2)(xxii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, passed an order. The second respondent had imposed a condition that the petitioner has to maintain existing timing and he is not entitled to get extra fare.

¶37

Learned counsel for the third respondent submitted that the Secretary to Regional Transport Authority has not been delegated with any power to sign the orders passed by the Regional Transport Authority. Therefore, the first respondent/Tribunal is correct in setting aside the order passed by the second respondent.

¶38

Perusal of the certified copy produced by the second respondent, make it clear that the said proceedings was signed by the Regional Transport Authority himself under his seal. Therefore, the reason given by the Tribunal, that the order passed by the second respondent was only signed by the 4/6

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

W.P.No.5312 of 2010

¶41

Secretary to second respondent is not correct.

¶42

In view of the fact, that the suo motu proceedings of the second respondent dated 20.09.2004 was signed by himself under his seal, the order passed by the first respondent is vitiated by an error apparent on the face of record. Therefore, the order passed by the first respondent is liable to set aside.

¶43

Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed. The order passed by the first respondent is set aside, by restoring the order passed by the second respondent. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶44

11.07.2022

¶45

Index :Yes/No Internet:Yes/No ham

¶46

S. SOUNTHAR, J.

¶47

5/6

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.5312 of 2010

ham

The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, High Court Campus, Chennai.

¶53

The Regional Transport Authority, Tiruchirappalli.

¶54

The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

¶55

W.P.No.5312 of 2010

¶56

and M.P.No.1 of 2010

¶57

11.07.2022

¶58

6/6

¶59

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

K.Ramesh, v. the State Transport Appellate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Ramesh, v. the State Transport Appellate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

J.Ramakrishnan Vs The Deputy Registrar of

A.Parthiban, Vs the Deputy Registrar of

Meera Vs Regional Transport Officer

M.Gopal, Vs the Principal District Judge

Bagalkot Cement & Industries Vs Chairman Micro Small and

M/s.Leather Leader Company (P) Vs The Chairman