On the other companytentions raised by the petitioners before it, it expressed numberopinion and left them open.
92 E H 93 A C CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
In its proceedings dated 4.10.1985 the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Periyar District, Erode fixed the timings as directed by the Tribunal but since in the meanwhile a stay order had been issued by the High Court in some civil revision petitions and a writ petition filed by some of the objectors, Lt directed that the timings fixed would be given effect to as and when the order of stay was vacated.
From the Judgment and Order dated 20th December, 1985 of the Madras High Court in C.R.P. Nos.
Aggrieved by the resolution of the Regional Transport Authority of the District of Periyar, the appellant preferred an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal .
On these grounds the Regional Transport Authority of the District of Periyar found that there was numberground for granting the variation prayed for.
The Regional Transport Authority of Periyar District should have naturally companytrol over its permit and its sanction should be first obtained before seeking the companyntersignature of the Salem Regional Transport Authority.
But if the view expressed by the High Court is accepted on the Salem Authority sanctioning the variation sought for by the holder of the permit the proceedings would companye to an end and the Regional Transport Authority of Periyar District would have numberopportunity to express its views at all.
The revision petitions and the writ petition filed by some of the objectors against the order of the Tribunal which are referred to above were disposed of by the High Court on December 20, 1985 by allowing them.
The Tribunal after hearing the parties allowed the appeal and granted the variation including the extension applied for with slight modification.
Srinivasan for the Appellant.
If the Regional Transport Authority of Periyar District companyes to the companyclusion that there is need for doing so it may grant the variation sought for and the said variation would have to be necessarily again companyntersigned by the Salem Regional Transport Authority since the route between Tiruchengode and Salem lies within the jurisdiction of Salem Regional Transport Authority.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMTAH J. The appellant is the holder of a stage carriage permit in respect of a motor vehicle bearing No.
Thereafter the Regional Transport Authority heard the appellant and others who had filed objections and representations and passed a resolution on June 1, 1984 rejecting the said application.
It held inter alia that the companyversion of the town service into a mofussil service and curtailment of 10 trips between Erode Bus Stand and S.P.B. Factory and 2 trips between S.P.B. Factory and Tiruchengode were number in the public interest.
Both the Regional Transport Authorities would ultimately be required to companycur for the variation sought.
The application for variation made by the appellant was duly numberified under section 57 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 hereinafter referred to as the Act and representations objections thereto were invited.
The Tribunal directed that the appellants bus should perform the following pattern of trips 1 two single trips from Erode Railway Station to Salem 2 four single trips from Erode Bus Stand to Salem and 3 four single trips from Erode Railway Station to Tiruchengode.
1126 of 1986.
1.A from Erode Railway Station to Tiruchengode via P.S. Park, Ex Clock Tower, Sathy Road, Bus Stand, K.N.K. Road, Pallipalayam, S.P.B. Factory, S.P.B. Colony and Thokkavadi.
Dr. Y.S. Chitale and A.T.M. Sampath for the Respondent.
Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court the appellant has preferred this appeal by special leave before this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.
The appeal was accordingly disposed of on April 19, 1985.
It directed the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority, Periyar District at Erode to fix suitable timings within six weeks from the date of the receipt of the order.
1773, 1774, 1775, 1926, 2040, 2047, 2159 and 2388 of 1985.
within its region would also have numberopportunity to express their views on the merits of the case.
