P.R. Shelvi v. The Regional Transport Authority, Salem

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 25.1.2012CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUDHAKARW.P.No. 34193 of 2002 P.R. Shelvi ... Petitioner Vs.1.The Regional Transport Authority,Salem. 2. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, High Court Campus, Chennai.104. ... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the recordsconnected with the judgment of the State Transport AppellateTribunal, Madras in Appeal No.831 of 2001, dated 14.3.2002 modifyingthe order of suspension of the petitioner's stage carriage busbearing registration No.TN-27E/7070 from a period of 30 days to 10days with option to compound and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mrs. Lita Srinivasan For Respondents : Mr. Lakshminarayanan Govt. Advocate ORDERThis writ petition is filed to call for the recordsconnected with the judgment of the State Transport AppellateTribunal, Madras in Appeal No.831 of 2001, dated 14.3.2002 modifyingthe order of suspension of the petitioner's stage carriage busbearing registration No.TN-27E/7070 from a period of 30 days to 10days with option to compound and quash the same. 2. This writ petition is filed challenging the order ofthe State Transport Appellate Tribunal. Petitioner's stage carriagebearing registration No.TN-27/E 7070 plying on the route Salem toKarur via Rasipuram and Namakkal covered by valid permit was checkedby the Motor Vehicle Inspector at 9.05 a.m. on 25.11.2000 at 227/6kms. Stone on NH 7 and the following irregularities were deducted. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ " As per the schedule of timings, the vehicle shouldreach Rasipuram at 9.10 a.m. And should departs at 9.14 a.m.Towards Salem. But at the time of check (i.e.) on25.11.2000 at 9.05 a.m., the vehcile was found plying fromNamakkal to Salem via N.H.Main Road in between AndagaloreGate and Masakalipatty near 227/6 kms. Stone withouttouching Rasipuram. Thus the vehicle was allowed to ply inan unauthorised route, though there were no read blockage."3. A show cause notice was issued calling upon the permitholder to state as to why the permit should not be cancelled orsuspended. An explanation was submitted on 1.3.2001 and in theexplanation, it has been stated that due to collision of a Bullock-cart and a lorry near Anna Road, all the vehicles were diverted atAndagalur Gate to ply on the main road to go to Rasipuram viaMasakalipatti. The Regional Transport Authority verified theremarks of the Checking Officer and came to the conclusion that therewas no road block as stated by the permit holder and the road leadingto Rasipuram was very clear. The Regional Transport Authority alsoobserved that the bus crew admitted the charges and signed in thecheck report and that the conductor's licence was not produced forchecking, which is the second charge. Based on the charge memo andthe remark of the checking officer and also the admission made by thebus crew by signing the check report, the Regional TransportAuthority came to the conclusion that the charge against the permitholder has been proved and held that the permit holder failed toprovide proper service to the public to go to Rasipuram and thecharges were held proved. The allegation of motive against thechecking officer was rejected stating that there is no basis for thesame. He also came to the conclusion that the conductor, one of thecrew, was travelling in the bus without proper licence is an offenceand that the ticket book, daily collection memo, trip sheet etc.,have not been furnished along with the explanation to prove the caseof the permit holder. He therefore held that the charges were provedand ordered suspension of the vehicle permit for a period of 30 dayswith an option to compound at the rate of Rs.300/- per day to bepaid within 15 days. Against this order, an appeal was filed beforethe State Transport Appellate Tribunal, which after going throughthe order of the Regional Transport Authority and the recordsproduced, confirmed the finding with regard to the charges. Howeveron the question of punishment, the Appellate Authority took a lenientview and reduced the punishment as follows:-" Suspension of permit for a period of 10 days with anoption to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- in lieu of suspension i.e.at the rate of Rs.300/- per day thereby, the appeal waspartly allowed."Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. LitaSrinivasan pleaded that the explanation given by the petitioner-permit holder for the diversion in the route has not been properlyappreciated and no opportunity was given to submit the records. Shealso submitted that non production of conductor licence cannot be aground to invoke power under Section 86(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act.On the first charge, the Regional Transport Authority has clearlycome to the conclusion that there is no diversion in the route andthe bus crew has admitted the charge and signed in the check reportand therefore, there is nothing more for the petitioner to clarifywhen the crew itself had admitted the charges. In any event, thereason given in the explanation that there was a road block wasnegatived based on the remark of the checking officer, who statedthat the route to Rasipuram was very clear. No material was producedby the petitioner before the authority to substantiate the plea ofroad block. Therefore, the said plea was rightly rejected as onewithout basis. (i) The second charge is that the conductor licence has notbeen produced for checking. In relation to the first charge that thebus was plying in an unauthorised route in violation of the routepermit without just or reasonable cause that the authority wanted toverify the conductor licence. . The authority's request to verifythe conductor licence and other records was not complied by thepetitioner. It only goes to show that the permit holder has nottaken care and caution to ensure that the vehicle is managed by aduly authorised conductor. This justifies the first charge regardingthe route violation. 5. The power exercised by the authority under Section 86(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act in respect of first charge by itselfwill justify the order. Moreover, in the order passed by theRegional Transport Authority, the main ground on which, the chargeswere held to be proved is with regard to the first charge i.e.relating to violation of the route without just or reasonable cause. 6. In any event, the memorandum of appeal has not beenenclosed in the typed set of papers to substantiate the legal pleanow taken. 7. Since both the authorities have concurrently held thatthere is a violation of the provisions of the Act and the AppellateAuthority has modified and reduced the punishment imposed takinglenient view, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the ordersof the Authority any further. There is no illegality or errorapparent on the face of the record for interference by this Court. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

8. In the result, finding no merits, this writ petitionis dismissed. No costs. Sd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarraTo1.The Regional Transport Authority,Salem. 2. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, High Court Campus, Chennai.104. + 1 cc to Government Pleader Sr.5471WP No. 34193 of 2002GGK(CO)Eu 26.3.12