Disposed¶30

V.Prabhu v. The Transport Commissioner

Madras HC13 Aug 2025WP(MD)/22064/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ of Mandamus; Article 226 Constitution of India; mini bus permit non-operation; Registration No. TN 63-J-7678; route Sukkampatti to Kocipatti / Puthanatham to Sukkampatti; Transport Commissioner Chennai; Regional Transport Authority cum District Collector Tiruchirappalli; RTO Trichy West direction; D. Subbulakshmi permit holder; village bus services; Madurai Bench; W.P(MD)No.22064 of 2025; disposed with direction, no costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with a direction to the third respondent/Regional Transport Officer, Trichy West to look into the petitioner's complaint and take appropriate action to ensure availability of bus services; no order as to costs; connected miscellaneous petition (W.M.P.(MD) No.17169 of 2025) closed. ¶30

V.Prabhu Vs The Transport Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.22064 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 13.08.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.22064 of 2025 and

¶7

W.M.P.(MD) No.17169 of 2025

¶8

V. Prabhu ... Petitioner

¶9

¶10

The Transport Commissioner, O/o.The Transport Commissioner, Guindy, Chennai - 600032.

¶11

The Regional Transport Authority Cum District Collector, Collectorate Building, Tiruchirappalli -1.

¶12

The Regional Transport Officer, (Trichy West), O/o.Regional Transport Officer, Pirattiyur, Ramji Nagar Post, Tiruchirappalli -9.

¶13

D.Subbulakshmi ... Respondents

¶14

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

¶15

1/5

¶16

W.P(MD)No.22064 of 2025

¶17

PRAYER:

¶18

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd and 3rd respondents to take appropriate action against the 4th Respondent's Mini Bus bearing Registration No.TN 63-J-7678 for not operating on the route from Puthanatham to Sukkampatti for the day one she obtained the permit on the route Sukkampatti to Kocipatti and for other reliefs.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.A.C. Asaithambi,

¶20

For Respondent : Mr.P. Thilak Kumar (R1 - R3) Additional Government Pleader

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

[Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.]

¶23

The writ of Mandamus has been instituted to direct the

¶24

respondents 1 to 3 to take appropriate action against the fourth respondent.

¶25

2.The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the fourth respondent was granted route permission to operate bus services from Sukkampatti to Kocipatti. But the fourth respondent is not operating the bus. The complaint given by the petitioner has not been 2/5

¶26

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

¶27

W.P(MD)No.22064 of 2025

¶28

considered by the first respondent. Thus, the present writ petition came to be instituted.

¶29

3.The petitioner is entitled to seek bus services from the hands of the Transport Department. However, he cannot insist that the fourth respondent should operate bus services in respect of the said complaint given by the petitioner. The third respondent/Regional Transport Officer, Trichy West is directed to look into the complaint and take appropriate action and ensure that bus services are available to the people residing in that villages.

¶30

4.With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶31

Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No NCC:Yes/No LR

¶32

3/5

¶33

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

¶34

W.P(MD)No.22064 of 2025

¶35

¶36