SEKAR REPORTER

Court News from Madras High Court

Therefore, We allow this Writ Appeal. We hold that the Writ Petition itself was not maintainable as there is an efficacious alternative remedy and also for non-joinder of necessary parties and therefore, stands dismissed, however, with liberty to the respondent herein to pursue the remedy of appeal, if it chooses to do so, in accordance with law. Consequently, C.M.P.No.11495 of 2022 is closed. (M.N.B., CJ)           (D.B.C., J.)                                                                                                                         16.08.2022  Index : Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order grs Note: The original impugned order in one writ petition may be returned to the writ petitioner. THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARHY, J. grs W.A.No.1673 of 2022 16.08.2022. For  Appellants          : Mr.P.Muthukumar,   State Government Pleader   Assisted by Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan,   Government Advocate                                  For Respondent        : Mr.M.Palani JUDGMENT D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARHY, J.

by ·

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Judgment reserved  on :  04.08.2022

Judgment delivered on :  16.08.2022

CORAM :

THE HON’BLE MR.MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI,

CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

W.A.No.1673 of 2022

  1. The Secretary,

Regional Transport Authority,     Tiruppur Region North,     Tiruppur.

  1. The Regional Transport Authority,

Tiruppur District, Tiruppur.                                    .. Appellants

Versus M/s. Easy Ride Transports,

Represented by its Managing Partner,

M.Jagannathan,

No.5, Town Extension 3rd Street,

Tiruppur.                                   .. Respondent

Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the order, dated 16.11.2021 made in W.P.No.16897 of 2021 and allow this Writ Appeal.

For  Appellants          : Mr.P.Muthukumar,

State Government Pleader

Assisted by Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan,

Government Advocate

For Respondent        : Mr.M.Palani

JUDGMENT D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARHY, J.

The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Tiruppur Region North, Tiruppur and the Regional Transport Authority, Tiruppur District, Tiruppur, being the only respondents in W.P.No.16897 of 2021, have preferred this Writ Appeal against the judgment of the learned Judge, dated 16.11.2021, in and by which, the Writ Petition, filed by the respondent herein, was allowed by quashing the order impugned in the Writ Petition, dated 18.07.2020 and remitting the matter back to the appellants herein for reconsideration in accordance with the factual and legal position rendered by the learned Judge for grant of variation in the permit i.e., to grant extension upto Coimbatore Gandhipuram Bus Stand as sought for in the application of the respondent.

  1. At the outset, we find that the Writ Petition itself is not

maintainable.  It is seen from the facts of this case that an application was made by the respondent herein on 04.12.2008 for extension of the route of

the respondent from Coimbatore Lakshmi Mills to Coimbatore

Gandhipuram Bus stand in respect of its Stage Carriage, bearing registration

No.TN25 AD 2735 plying on the route Tiruppur to Coimbatore Lakshmi Mills so as to operate on the route Tiruppur Old Bus stand to Coimbatore Gandhipuram Bus Stand.  In this regard, it is seen from the records that by an order, dated 29.04.2019 in W.P.No.11450 of 2019 filed by the first

respondent herein, this Court had ordered as follows:-

“In view of the above submission, this Court is directed to consider the application of the petitioner, dated 04.12.2008, as per the direction of this Court in W.P.No.29629 of 2016, dated 26.09.2016, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the second respondent has to pass orders in the light of the orders passed in W.P.No.12758 of 2003, dated 24.04.2003.”

  1. However, once again, the present Writ Petition was filed in August,

2021 with the following prayer:-

“For the reasons stated above, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Order of Direction in the nature of Writ directing the 2nd respondent to pass order on the application for variation of the petitioner dated 04.12.2008 in respect of the vehicle bearing Regn.No.TN 39 BE 0555 since replaced by TN25 AD 2735 plying on the route Tirupur to Coimbatore Lakshmi mills so as to operate in between Tiruppur old bus stand and Coimbatore Gandhipuram bus stand, in the light of the order of this Hon’ble Court, made in W.P.No.11450 of 2019, dated 29.04.2019, and thus render justice.”

Thus, on the face of it, repeated mandamus sought for in respect of the

same prayer, the writ petition not maintainable.

  1. Be that as it may, when the Writ Petition came up for admission on 06.09.2021, it was brought to the notice of the Court by the appellants herein that already, an order was passed on the application by rejecting the same on 18.07.2020 itself. Upon such representation, the respondent herein sought time to amend the prayer and filed W.M.P.No.21186 of 2021, thereby, amending the relief prayed for in the Writ Petition, which was also granted

by this Court, which is as follows:-

“For the reasons stated above, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Order or Direction in the nature of Writ calling for the records of the 2nd respondent made in R.No.032874/A3/2019 dated 18.07.2020 and quash the same and direct the 2nd respondent to allow the application of the petitioner dated 04.12.2008, filed for extension of the route from Coimbatore Laxmi Mill to Coimbatore Gandhipuram Bus Stand in respect of its stage carriage bearing Regn.No.TN25 AD 2735 plying on the route Tirupur to Coimbatore

Laxmi Mill so as to operate on the route Tirupur

Old Bus Stand to Coimbatore Gandhipuram Bus

Stand and thus render justice.”

  1. The Writ Petition, as per the amended prayer, is not at all maintainable because the order is appealable to the Tribunal under Section 89 of the Act. In this regard, the law is no longer res integra and it has been specifically held by an earlier bench of this Court in Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram Division II) Limited Vs. C.Durai1 and

it is useful to extract the relevant paragraphs which are as follows:-

“ 5. In U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. v. U.P. Rajya Setu Nigam Karmchari Sangh,

(1998) 4 SCC 268, the Supreme Court held that if there is a specific remedy available under a statute a writ petition should not be entertained.

  1. In the present case, there is an alternative efficacious remedy under Section 89/90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In our opinion, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal has inherent power of granting stay during the pendency of proceedings under Section 89/90 of the Act in an appropriate case.
  2. Hence, the writ petition should not at all have been entertained by the learned single Judge and should have been straight away dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.

.

.

1  2005 SCC OnLine Mad 4

. .

  1. In our opinion, no writ petition should ordinarily be entertained, when there is an alternative remedy, except in very rare cases if there is some compelling reason. In the present case, we are of the opinion that the learned single Judge was not justified in entertaining the writ petition at all and should have dismissed it on the ground of alternative remedy. The impugned order is set aside. The writ petition is dismissed.”

In the present case, absolutely, no reason whatsoever has been stated or considered by the learned Judge to entertain the Writ Petition and

consider the same on merits.

  1. In this regard, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, would rely upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Kanak (SMT) and Anr. Vs. U.P.Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and Ors.[1], to contend that inspite of the alternative remedy, the Writ Petition is

maintainable and the same having been entertained, at this stage the

respondent cannot be relegated to the alternative remedy.  In this connection, it has to be noted that in  paragraph No.31 of the above said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had rendered a finding that the appeal was not maintainable at the instance of the respondent and therefore, held that the Writ Petition was maintainable and therefore, the said judgment cannot be pressed into service by the appellants.  Thus, when there is a specialised Tribunal, which is constituted under the statute to deal with the matter on merits by entertaining appeals/revisions, the present Writ Petition is not

maintainable.

  1. However, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, would contend that the present Writ Appeal is not maintainable inasmuch as it is preferred by the appellant herein. He would submit that the appellants are quasi judicial authorities and therefore, even if any adverse orders are passed, the appeal to the High Court or for that matter, even the intracourt appeal cannot be filed by the quasi judicial authorites.  In support of his proposition, the learned Counsel relied upon the judgment of this Court in The Regional Transport Authority, Namakkal Region, Petitioner Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras and Ors., Respondents[2], the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Mohtesham Mohd. Ismail Vs. Spl. Director, Enforcement Directorate and Anr.[3].
  2. There can be no quarrel over the proposition that if, by a particular exercise of power, any authority decides the lis between two sides, the exercise of such power is quasi judicial in nature and in respect of such exercise of powers, it is only the party, aggrieved by the order, can carry the matter further in the appeal. Even if the Appeallate Court decides that the order of the quasi judicial authority is erroneous, again it would be the right of the other party, who lost the appeal, to carry it further and any appeal or Writ Petition or proceedings at the instance of the quasi judicial authority would not be maintainable.  But that is precisely the ground on which we are

interfering with the order of the learned Judge.

  1. If it is the contention of the respondent that the appellants herein had only decided the lis between the respondent and the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, which had submitted an objection, they ought to have filed an appeal before the Tribunal by arraying the objector, namely the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, as the respondent, in which case, the said party would be entitled to file further proceedings even if the order of the Tribunal was in favour of the first respondent. On the other hand, without filing the statutory appeal, without mentioning any reason to treat this as an exceptional case to entertain the Writ Petition and without arraying

any other prty as the respondent by arraying appeallants alone as the respondents, the present Writ Petition is filed and entertained. Therefore, the order of the learned Single Judge is not at all sustainable and when the respondent, on one hand, contesting that the nature of the power exercised is quasi judicial in nature, on the other hand, have not arrayed the contesting parties to the lis as respondents and tried to have an easy ride, we are of the view that under such circumstances, the appeal, to the limit extent, is

entertainable at the behest of the appellants herein.

  1. Therefore, We allow this Writ Appeal. We hold that the Writ Petition itself was not maintainable as there is an efficacious alternative remedy and also for non-joinder of necessary parties and therefore, stands dismissed, however, with liberty to the respondent herein to pursue the remedy of appeal, if it chooses to do so, in accordance with law.

Consequently, C.M.P.No.11495 of 2022 is closed.

(M.N.B., CJ)           (D.B.C., J.)

16.08.2022

Index : Yes/No

Speaking order/Non-speaking order grs

Note: The original impugned order in one writ petition may be returned to the writ petitioner.

 

THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE

AND D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARHY, J.

grs W.A.No.1673 of 2022

16.08.2022

 of 10

[1] (2003) 7 SCC 693

[2] AIR 1995 Madras 226

[3] (2007) 8 SCC 254

You may also like...