this writ petition. The main grievance of the petitioner Corporation is that the petitioner corporation has been facing severe loss of revenue due to non following of the scheme, 1999 by the mini bus operators like the 3r respondent. This court failed to understand as to how this contention is acceptable. As per the old scheme, the 3rd respondent has been operating mini bus with an overlapping distance of not exceeding 1 km on the served sector. Whereas under the new scheme, the petitioner has been permitted to operate mini bus with an over lapping distance of not exceeding 4 km on the served sector where the petitioner corporation operates. When such being the position, in the considered opinion of this court, it would not cause any revenue loss to the petitioner corporation. Further, the contention of the petitioner Corporation that the revenue of the corporation has been seriously affected on account of non operation of mini bus by the 3rd respondent up to 20 kms on the unserved sector as stipulated under the new scheme. If at all, the 3rd respondent does not operate the mini bus up to length of 20 kms on unserved sector, it is for the State Government to take appropriate action. It is not for the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation ( Kumbakonam ) Limited to raise such objection. At this juncture, it has been brought to the notice of this court that subsequently, permit granted to the 3rd respondent got renewed periodically and in the year 2011 another new scheme also came into effect by which 1999 Scheme got superseded. In the above circumstances, this court find no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the 1st respondent. Thus, this court does not find any merit in the writ petition and the same deserves only to be dismissed.
