In this writ petition challenging a restriction on bus routes, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed the plea, finding no arbitrariness in the order passed by the Municipal Commissioner to avoid traffic jams.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(MD).No.21222 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 03.12.2021 CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN W.P.(MD).No.21222 of 2021
R.Eswaran
.. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.
2.The Regional Transport Officer, Office of the Regional Transport Office, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.
3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Traffic Investigation Wing, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District.
4.The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Virudhunagar District.
5.The Municipal Commissioner, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records on the file of the respondents relating to the impugned order passed by the 4th respondent vide his proceedings in ghh;it vz;. j.m.ngh.f./t,/rp2/234/2021 dated 12.08.2021 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to re-implement the order of the 1st respondent dated 09.02.2019 based on the petitioner's representation.
For Petitioner : Mr.SJ.Chakkaravarthy For R1 to R3 : Mr.B.Saravanan Additional Government Pleader For R4 :Mr.Herold Singh Standing Counsel
1/4
W.P.(MD).No.21222 of 2021
ORDER (Order of the Court was made by P.VELMURUGAN, J.,)
This Writ Petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated 12.08.2021 passed by the fourth respondent informing the petitioner that, as per the District Administration Order, the buses plying from Virudhunagar old bus stand to sattur, Aruppukottai Margam via bazar will be operated via Sivagamipuram, Aathupalam from 28.06.2021. The said impugned order is against the will and wish of the public. The fourth respondent and their District Administration has arbitrarily suspended the decision which was taken by the first respondent.
2.The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner would submit that Virudhunagar District is a Selection Grade Municipality and there are many encroachments in and around Virudhunagar, due to which, traffic jams are arising frequently. If the Government removed the encroachments in the main bazar SH 33 State Highways and on the very next day itself all are re-occupying the same. Therefore, on 09.02.2019, the first respondent has passed an order, based on the Road Safety Committee that the operation/plying of the Government and private buses through the main bazar from 09.02.2019, was already declared as one way and hence, the first respondent has taken the steps only for the purpose of avoiding traffic congestion and to maintain the Town in clean. The first respondent has decided to conduct public opinion poll in and around Virudhunagar Town in respect of plying the bus through the main bazar. According to the opinion poll, 71% of the public are in favour of plying the bus through main bazar. Based on the public poll, it was decided to accept the order of the first respondent dated 09.02.2019, which was already issued by the first respondent and proceeded accordingly. The act of the first respondent was in the interest of the public of the Virudhunagar to run the Government and private buses through main bazar of Virudhunagar. Subsequently, the fourth respondent arbitrarily not allowed the said order of the first respondent and issued the impugned order, which is arbitrary and the interest of public and hence, the learned counsel prays to set aside the impugned order.
3.Heard Mr.SJ.Chakkaravarthy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.B.Saravanan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.Herold Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent.
4.The petitioner himself admitted that there are many encroachments in and around Virudhunagar and thereby, traffic jams are arising frequently. On 09.02.2019, the first respondent/ District Collector passed an order, based on the Road Safety Committee, that the operation/plying of the Government and private buses through the main bazar from 09.02.2019, which was already
2/4
W.P.(MD).No.21222 of 2021
declared as one way. The said decision was taken by the first respondent only for the purpose of avoiding traffic congestion and to maintain the Town in cleanliness.
5.The relevant portion of the impugned order is extracted hereunder:
”ghh;itapy; fhZk; g[fhh; fojj;jpy; rhiy ghJfhg;g [ FG Tl;l eltof;ifapd;go 09.02.2019 Kjy; tpUJefh; giHa ngUe;J epiyaj;jpy; ,Ue;J rhj;J}h; mUg;g [f ;nfhl;il khh;f ;fkhf ,af;fg ;gLk; ngUe;Jfs; midj;Jk; g$hh; tHpahf ,af;fk ; bra;ag ;gl ;ljhft[k ; mg;ngUe ;Jfs; jw;bghGJ khw;WtHpj;jlj;jpy; ,af;Ftij jtph;j ;J giHa tHpj;jlj;jpy; ,af;fk ; eltof;if vLf;FkhW nfhug;gl ;lLs;sJ.
tpUJefh; giHa ngUe;J epiyaj;jpy; ,Ue;J g$hh;
tHpahf rhj;J}h ; mUg;g [f ;nfhl;il khh;f ;fkhf ,af;fg ;gl ;l ngUe;Jfs; khtl;l eph;thf cj;jutpd;go 28.06.2021 Kjy; chpa tHpj;jlkhd
rptfhkpg[uk ; Mj;Jg ;ghyk; tHpahf ,af;fk ; bra;ag ;gLfpwJ vd;gij
jq;fSf;F md;g [ld ; bjhptpj;Jf ;bfhs;fpnwhk;.”
6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any arbitrariness in the order of the fourth respondent, which is only in order to avoid traffic jam. The petitioner himself admitted that even if the Government removed the encroachments in the main bazar SH 33 State Highways by the Authority, the very next day itself all are re-occupying the same. The question that the restrictions have been i”mposed in not allowing the buses from plying through the main bazar, that too, after obtaining public poll in and around the Virudhunagar Town in respect of plying the buses, in which 71% of the public are in favour of plying the bus through main bazar, is concerned, this Court is unable to accept such contentions of the petitioner for the simple reason that the 4th respondent, the Municipal Commissioner, is Authority to take a decision, as and when need arises in the interest of public at large and therefore, this Court does not find any arbitrariness, as contended by the petitioner.
7.For the forgoing discussions, we hereby dismiss the Writ Petition dismissed. No costs.
Assistant Registrar (AD-I)
// True Copy //
/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)
3/4
W.P.(MD).No.21222 of 2021
Ns To
1.The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.
2.The Regional Transport Officer, Office of the Regional Transport Office, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.
3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Traffic Investigation Wing, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District.
4.The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Virudhunagar District.
5.The Municipal Commissioner, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District.
+1 CC to M/s.S.C.HEROLD SINGH, Advocate ( SR-37560[F] dated 07/12/2021 )
+1 CC to M/s.S.J.CHAKKARAVARTHY, Advocate ( SR-37301[F] dated 03/12/2021 )
+1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-37412[F] dated 06/12/2021 )
W.P.(MD).No.21222 of 2021 03.12.2021
BUC(CO) KB(22.12.2021) 4P 9C
4/4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned order by the Municipal Commissioner, restricting bus plying via the main bazar to avoid traffic congestion, is arbitrary and void.
R. Eswaran
District Collector, Virudhunagar District
Regional Transport Officer, Virudhunagar District
Deputy Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar
General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Virudhunagar
Municipal Commissioner, Virudhunagar District
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
P. VELMURUGAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
