Dismissed¶36

The Regional Transport authority, v. K.Selvan

Madras HC17 Apr 2025WA(MD)/1528/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mini bus permit; 100% served sector claim contradicted by joint inspection (total route 8.3 kms; served sector 4.0 kms; unserved sector 4.3 kms); 1999 scheme and 2011 modified scheme; Regional Transport Authority Tirunelveli; Regional Transport Officer Tenkasi; W.A.(MD)No.1528 of 2021; C.M.P.(MD)No.6235 of 2021; W.P.(MD)No.22198 of 2019; W.P.(MD)No.18067 of 2018; Clause XV of Letters Patent; writ appeal dismissed; compliance deadline 30.04.2025; K.Selvan; Ambasamudram Bus Stand to Vikaramasingapuram Amali School; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal dismissed with the direction that the appellants comply with the learned Single Judge's direction to issue the mini bus permit immediately and forthwith, in any event before 30.04.2025; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed. ¶36

The Regional Transport authority, Vs K.Selvan — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

W.A.(MD)No.1528 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 17.04.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN

¶6

W.A.(MD)No.1528 of 2021 and C.M.P.(MD)No.6235 of 2021

¶7

1.The Regional Transport Authority, Office of the Regional Transport Authority, Tirunelveli District.

¶8

2.The Regional Transport Officer, Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District. ... Appellants

¶9

Vs.

¶10

K.Selvan ... Respondent

¶11

Prayer : Writ Appeal filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent, to allow the writ appeal by setting aside the order dated 12.03.2020 made in W.P.(MD).No.22198 of 2019 on the file of this Court.

¶12

For Respondent : Mr.A.C.Asaithambi

¶13

1/6

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

W.A.(MD)No.1528 of 2021

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

The writ petitioner / K.Selvan applied for mini bus permit for the petition mentioned route i.e., from Ambasamudram Bus Stand to Vikaramasingapuram Amali School. The total length of the route is 8.3 kms. The writ petitioner's earlier application was rejected on the ground that the norms set out in the 2011 modified scheme were not fulfiled. Challenging the same, the writ petitioner filed W.P.(MD)No.18067 of 2018 and it was allowed vide order dated 05.10.2018 on the ground that the modified scheme was not in force. Eventually, the modified scheme was also set aside. The case of the writ petitioner was directed to be considered under old 1999 scheme.

¶18

2.The writ petitioner was unsuccessful once again. The Regional Transport Authority rejected the writ petitioner's request vide proceedings dated 26.09.2019. Challenging the same, the writ petitioner filed W.P.(MD)No.22198 of 2019. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 12.03.2020 allowed the writ petition. Challenging the same, this writ appeal has been filed.

¶19

2/6

¶20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶21

W.A.(MD)No.1528 of 2021

¶22

3.The order impugned in the writ petition reads that the proposed

¶23

route comes under 100% served sector. Interestingly, in the counter affidavit itself, the aforesaid finding has been completely undermined. Paragraph No.17 of the counter affidavit filed by the appellants reads as

¶24

follows:-

¶25

“17.I respectfully submit that as per the orders of the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.(MD)No.18067 of 2018, Personal hearing was conducted on 26.08.2019 at Collector's Chamber, Tirunelveli. At the time of hearing Thiru.K.Selvan, Cheranmahadevi was attended the hearing and submitted written

¶26

statement. As per joint inspection made on 28.12.2017.

¶27

1) Total route length proposed . . 8.3 kms 2) Served sector . . 4.0 kms 3) Un served sector . . 4.3 kms”

¶28

4.When according to the joint inspection, out of total route length of 8.3 kms, served sector is only 4.0 kms and the unserved sector is 4.3 kms, it is not proper to hold that the entire route comes under 100% served sector. The learned Single Judge rightly interfered in the matter and issued direction to the authorities to issue permit forthwith. We sustain the said direction. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner / respondent states that a new scheme is proposed to come into force on

¶29

3/6

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

W.A.(MD)No.1528 of 2021

¶32

01.05.2025. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that

¶33

seeking remedy, the writ petitioner moved the appellate authority on seven occasions and moved this Court on two occasions. The writ

¶34

petitioner's labour should not be allowed to go waste. We, therefore, direct the appellants to comply with the direction of the learned Single