Setaside bus case HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN W.P.No.9218 of 2015 and MP.No.2 of 2015 M/s.Coimbatore Suburban Carriers (P) Ltd.,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24.10.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
W.P.No.9218 of 2015 and
MP.No.2 of 2015
M/s.Coimbatore Suburban Carriers (P) Ltd.,
No.8/4B, G.RG. Layout, Trichy Road,
Coimbatore-641 018. Rep.by its Director
M.R.Devaraj
vs
1.The Regional Transport Authority, Coimbatore (South), Coimbatore.
2.Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Coimbatore.
3.The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, .. Petitioner
Chennai. .. Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorari Mandamus calling for the records of the Impugned Order of the First Respondent made in
R.No.110701/A3/2010, dated 01.06.2011 and the conseuqential order of the 3rd Respondent by confirming the order of the 1st Respondent in
M.V.Appeal No.89 of 2011, dated 30.01.2015 and to quash the same and further to direct the Respondents to consider the Petitioner’s Application for the Renewal of Permit in the light of the Provisions of Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Act 41 of 1992 with reference to the Petitioner’s Stage
Carriage Permit on the Route – Coimbatore Gandhipuram to Boluvampatti.
For Petitioner : Mrs.Radha Gopalan for Mr.K.Hariharan
For Respondents : Mr.Haja Nazirudeen, (for R1) Additional Advocate General – IV assisted by Mr.V.Nanmaran, Additional Government Pleader
Mr.A.Sundaravadhanan (for R2)
Standing Counsel
R3 – Tribunal
O R D E R
This writ petition challenges the order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Chennai in M.V.Appeal No.89 of 2011 dated 30.01.2015 in confirming the order passed by the Regional
Transport Authority, Coimbatore (South) in proceedings
R.No.110701/A3/2010 dated 01.06.2011. By the said order, the State
Transport Appellate Authority confirmed the order of the Regional
Transport Authority, Coimbatore rejecting the application for renewal of a stage carriage permit for vehicle bearing registration No.TN37 F 9129. The writ petitioner had filed the said application for renewal to ply on
Gandhipuram to Poluvampatti, in Coimbatore Town Service Road Route No.56 for the successive period from 10.10.1977 to 09.10.2015.
2.I heard Mrs.Radha Gopalan, for Mr.K.Hariharan, for the petitioner, Mr.Sundaravadhanan, for the 2nd respondent and the learned
Additional Advocate General Mr.Haja Nazirudeen, assisted this Court.
3.The admitted facts of this case are as follows.
4.The petitioner was a holder of stage carriage permit issued under the erstwhile Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. This permit was for now designated as Town Service Route No.56 Coimbatore, from
Gandhipuram to Poluvampatti. As the petitioner’s permit was to expire on 10.10.1977, the petitioner filed an application invoking Section 59(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. This application was filed on 01.08.1977. The authority in terms of Section 57(3) of the Old Motor Vehicles Act called for objections. The 2nd respondent, in its previous avatar as Cheran Transport Corporation, filed an objection to the renewal. Simultaneously, it sought for grant of a permit for the said route to itself. The Regional Transport Authority rejected the application filed by the petitioner and allowed the application filed by Cheran Transport Corporation.
5.Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 3rd respondent, which also ended in a dismissal. Thereafter, he preferred a revision to this Court invoking Section 64(B) of the Motor Vehicles Act, as amended by the State of Tamil Nadu. The revision was dismissed. Against the dismissal, Civil Appeals were preferred to the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.1049 & 1050 of 1980. In the meantime, the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was repealed and a new legislation, namely, the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 came into force.
6.A slight digression is necessary here. As the State of Tamil Nadu nationalised the routes, private operators were affected. By virtue of Government Orders issued from time to time, the permits of the private operators continued to be extended. M/s.Pandian Roadways Corporation took a plea that the renewal of permits of private operators over areas covered by schemes, is illegal. Initially it was unsuccessful. On an appeal to the Supreme Court it was successful. In Pandiyan Roadways Corporation Ltd. v. M.A.Egappan (1987) 2 SCC 47, the Supreme Court agreed with the submissions of Pandiyan Roadways Corporation and held that in the areas covered by the scheme, the private operators cannot be permitted to operate their stage carriage permit. This put the State of Tamil Nadu into a limbo. This was because, there were more than 4000 private operators and the State of Tamil Nadu neither had the financial capacity, nor the logistical ability to substitute itself in all those routes. Hence, a special legislation was brought titled Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as Act 41 of 1992).
7.Section 1(3) of this legislation saved the permits that had been granted between 04.06.1976 and 30.06.1990. Section 6 of this Act is deemed to have come into force with effect from 01.07.1990. Under Section 6(1) of the Act 41 of 1992, notwithstanding anything contained under the Central Act or any approved scheme, the Regional Transport Authority was permitted to renew permits for small operators on such portion of the route covered by the approved scheme. Small operators are those who have less than five (5) permits.
8.According to Section 4 of Act 41 of 1992, notwithstanding anything contained in a draft scheme or an approved scheme, all permits and temporary permits granted, renewed, or varied under the Motor Vehicles Act and under Section 3, authorising the use of stage carriages over the entire route or any portion of the route were held to be valid for the period during which such permits were granted renewed or varied.
Under Section 7 of Act 41 of 1992, any application for grant of new permit on a notified route was deemed to have been abated. This Section has to be read along with Section 6(4) of Act 41 of 1992, which declared that the Regional Transport Authority is not empowered to grant any new permit to any person, on any route which is covered by the approved scheme.
9.The constitutional validity of this legislation was put to test by Pandiyan Roadways Corporation’s case. A Division Bench consisting M.Srinivasan (as his Lordship then was) and Thangamani, JJ upheld the validity. The Bench held that Act 41 of 1992 is a special legislation, insofar as State of Tamil Nadu is concerned and since it had obtained the assent of the President of India on 31.07.1992, it will be valid in this State.
10.A combined reading of Sections 1(3), 3, 6 and 7 makes it clear that the State of Tamil Nadu wanted the small operators to continue to operate on approved schemes, notwithstanding the judgment in M.A.Egappan’s case.
11.Coming back to the present case, the petitioner made out an application to the 1st respondent for renewal of his permit. This was on account of the observation granted by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.1049 & 1050 of 1980 in the following terms:
‘Concededly, there is no bar to the appellant moving the departmental authorities for obtaining a route permit. Their application, if made, will have to be processed under the new Act’.
12.The Civil Appeals were dismissed because the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, having been repealed, it serves no useful purpose in passing any orders in the Civil Appeals preferred against the Civil Revision Petitions under the old Act. The 1st respondent took up the application for hearing and issued notice to the 2nd respondent herein.
13.The 2nd respondent immediately filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.28304 of 2010 questioning the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent to pass an order. Initially, the petitioner was successful in obtaining an interim order. When the matter was taken up for final
disposal, this court dismissed the writ petitions, leaving it open to the 1st respondent to consider all the objections, including the objection that he has no jurisdiction to consider an application for renewal of permit over an approved route. This Court permitted the 1st respondent to proceed and pass orders accordingly.
14.With the road having been cleared for the 1st respondent to deal
with the application, he heard the petitioner, as well as the 2nd respondent herein. Instead of deciding all the issues as directed by this Court, after extracting the statements of objects and reasons of Act 41 of 1992, and Section 217A of the Motor Vehicles Act, he dismissed the application holding that it was barred by time.
15.Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred M.V. Appeal No.89 of 2011 before the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent too, did not go into the merits of the case. It extracted Section 10 of Act 41 of 1992 and Section 217A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and referred to the previous round of litigation initiated by the petitioner under the old Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, and dismissed the appeal. The appellate authority too, did not go into the entitlement of the petitioner under Section 6(1) read with Section 1(3) of Act 41 of 1992, as well as the objections that had been made by the 2nd respondent with respect to the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent to deal with the application.
16.Mrs.Radha Gopalan, submitted that the Government of Tamil Nadu had passed an order in G.O.Ms.No.1030, dated 06.09.1979, directing the State Transport undertakings to withdraw all their objections with respect to renewal of permits filed by small operators, and had further directed that the State Transport Corporation should withdraw all appeals, and the Civil Revision Petitions against the permits that had been granted to the small operators. She pleaded that the writ petitioner is a small operator and the 2nd respondent had selectively withdrawn the applications filed by it and had not abided by the directions of the State of Tamil Nadu.
17.She pointed out that in 1977, the 2nd respondent had filed a fresh application for 39 permits and raised objections against the renewal of permits of similarly placed private operators, and had grossly disobeyed the directions issued by the State of Tamil Nadu.
18.I should point out that this objection had not been raised before the Regional Transport Authority or before the State Transport Appellate Authority. In any event, in light of the directions given by the Supreme Court that the applications will have to be considered in accordance with the new Act, namely, the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, read with the Special Legislation in Tamil Nadu, namely, Act 41 of 1992, this plea pales into oblivion.
19.Though Mr.Sundaravadanan would urge that the order passed by Hon’ble Mr.Justice E.Padmanabhan in W.P.No.591 of 1996, dated
11.04.2003 covers the field, I should point out the following:-
20.Aggrieved by the order dated 11.04.2003, the petitioners had preferred an Writ Appeal in W.A.Nos.1723 & 1724 of 2003. Originally, a Division Bench consisting of K.Raviraja Pandian and Chitra Venkataraman,JJ had dismissed the appeal on 05.03.2008. Thereafter, the matter was listed “for being mentioned”, the Division Bench held that none of the observations made in the order will stand in the way of the appellants/the writ petitioners herein, from approaching the authorities to consider their grievance in accordance with law.
21.The observations of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal
Nos.1049 & 1050 of 1980 dated 28.09.1995, and that of the Division Bench dated 05.03.2008, make it clear that it is for the 1st respondent to apply his mind to the issues that have been raised before him and pass a reasoned order.
22.I do not find any reason given by the 1st respondent other than the aspect of delay. Even on the point of delay, much has to be said because the tabular column extracted by him in page No.4 of the order, points out that from 10.10.1977 till 09.10.2015, the permit of the petitioner had regularly been renewed on applications.
23.As I have already extracted the relevant provisions from the Special Legislation of Tamil Nadu to point out that the existing permits, whether temporary or otherwise, granted in terms of Section 4, have been held to be valid. This is only a prima facie conclusion. The authority would necessarily have to treat the application filed by the petitioner in the light of the Supreme Court’s direction that the application is to be considered in the light of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with the Special Legislation Act, 41 of 1992. Similarly, the appellate authority too, has not given any cogent reasons. Mere extracting of the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Special Legislation and quoting Section 217A, does not pass muster. The Tribunal should have come to a conclusion as to how the said provisions affect the application made by the petitioner.
24.It is oft repeated that reasons are the heartbeat of an order, and without reasons having been set forth, the order is but still-born. In fact, the Supreme Court has raised the duty to give reasons to the level of a facet of principles of natural justice, and that not having been complied with in the present case, the order cries out to be quashed and
accordingly, it is quashed.
25.Since I have concluded that the order passed by the respondent
Nos.1 and 3 have not considered the issue as directed by the Supreme Court, the application filed by the petitioner before the 1st respondent stands restored. The 2nd respondent is entitled to raise all objections, including that of limitation and that of jurisdiction, for which liberty had been granted by this Court in W.P.No.28304 of 2010 dated 20.01.2011. The 1st respondent shall pass an order deciding all the issues raised on or before 27.11.2025.
26.In the result, this Writ Petition stands allowed. The impugned orders are set aside. The matter is remanded as aforesaid. No costs. Connection miscellaneous petition is closed.
27.Both the parties shall act upon on the web copy of this order and will not wait for a certified copy of this order.
28.Post this case ‘for reporting compliance’ on 28.11.2025.
24.10.2025
Index:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation:Yes/No vs
Note:Upload this order on or before 25.10.2025.
To
1.The Regional Transport Authority, Coimbatore (South), Coimbatore.
2.Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Coimbatore.
3.The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Chennai. 
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.
vs
W. P.No.9218 of 2015and MP.No.2 of 2015
24.10.2025