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 between Government Rajaji Hospital to Solaimathi for his Mini Bus bearing Registration NO.TN-58-E-1728 on the route that has been stated in the permit viz., solaimathi Via., 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 12.08.2009 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. It was followed by another letter to the first respondent on the same day. The petitioner has also enclosed the photographs of the road and the obstructions to enable the authorities to take speedy action. As no steps have been taken, this Writ Petition is filed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court made in W.P.No.3727 of 2004 dated 07.03.2005 and W.P.No.1148 of 2009 dated 19.03.2009 and submitted that till the respondents conduct enquiry, the petitioner may be directed to operate the bus in the alternate route to reach the destination.
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 12.08.2009, 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 12.08.2009, 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 miscellaneous petition is also closed.
cs To
1.The Regional Transport Authority, Madurai.
2.The Regional Transport Officer, Madurai North.