Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Manoharan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. By consent of both sides, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
2. The petitioner is having valid permit to run the bus TN-58-B-8308 plying between Government Rajaji Hospital to Solaimathi, the route through which the bus has to ply is Ramarayar Thirukkan Street, Sappani Kovil Street, Mathichiyam East Street. According to the petitioner, due to the construction of underground drainage works, the roads in Thasildar Nagar, Maruthupandi Street, Melamadai Panchayat office, Gomathipuram are totally damaged and become unfit for usage of motor vehicles. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to run the Mini bus from Government Rajaji Hospital to Solaimathi through Panagal Road and Sivagangai Main Road. He also sent a representation dated 10.02.2009 requesting the respondents, Madurai Corporation and the Panchayat officials to repair the roads and also remove the encroachments found in the Ramarayar Thirukkan Street, Sappani Kovil Street, Mathichiyam East Street.
3. As no action has been taken by the Municipal authorities, the petitioner filed W.P.738 of 2009 against the respondents herein seeking direction forbearing the respondents from preventing the operation of the petitioner's Mini Bus bearing registration No.TN-59-B-8308 plying on the diverted route. That writ petition was disposed of on 29.01.2009, directing the respondents to consider the grievance of the petitioner on merits and in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. Thereafter, the petitioner sent a representation dated 10.02.2009 to the respondents and even after that no action has been taken by the respondents. According to the petitioner, without passing any order regarding the diversion of the route as requested by the petitioner, the authorities are preventing him from taking the Mini Bus TN-59-B-8308 in the diverted route. Hence, the writ petition is filed.
4. Mr.R.Manoharan, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that the respondents will consider the representation of the petitioner and verify whether the allegation made by the petitioner regarding the road condition is true or not and if it is found to be true, the respondents will pass orders for changing the route and till any order is passed by the respondent, it is not open to the petitioner to change the route. He also relied upon the judgment rendered in W.P.No.1885 of 2009 dated 14.03.2009, wherein similar order has been passed by this Court.
5. It is seen from the judgment submitted by either side that this Court has directed the respondents to conduct an enquiry about the condition of the road and in other two judgments this Court has also permitted the petitioner to change the route, pending disposal of the representation by the petitioner. It is further seen from
Section 66(3)(m) of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), any transport vehicle which owing to flood, earthquake or any other natural calamity, obstruction on road or unforeseen circumstances is required to be diverted through any other route with a view to enabling it to reach its destination, the provisions of Sub-Clause (1) of
Section 66(3)(m) shall not apply.
6. The phrase 'obstruction on road' need not be construed in a literal sense to mean, any tangible obstruction found on the road and it also includes the bad road condition, which make the road un-motorable or impossibility of taking a vehicle through the road. Therefore, as per
Section 66(3)(m) of the Act, due to obstruction on road, the bus can be diverted through any other road with a view to enable it to reach the destination. However, to find out whether the road condition is such as un-motorable as claimed by the petitioner, the second respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 10.02.2009, with regard to the condition of the road and pass orders within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till the order is passed by the second respondent on the basis of the representation of the petitioner, dated 10.02.2009, stating the condition of the road, the petitioner is permitted to operate the bus in a diverted route, as he is doing now and if the report of the second respondent reveals that the road condition is not so bad and the petitioner can operate through that road, then, the petitioner is bound to obey the order of the second respondent and thereafter it is not open to the petitioner to take the bus through the alternate route.
7. With this observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently the connected M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2009 closed.
sj To
1.The Regional Transport Authority, Madurai.
2.The Regional Transport Officer, Madurai North.