Disposed

V.Gobu v. The Regional Transport Authority

Madras HC3 Dec 2025WP(MD)/33845/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought revival of a cancelled stage carriage permit replacement order after an interim injunction in his sister's related writ led to its cancellation, citing the old vehicle's poor condition. The court directed respondents to permit running of the replaced vehicle within one week and to keep the old vehicle as a spare without selling it, leaving the third respondent's civil remedies in

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents 1 and 2 to permit petitioner to run replaced vehicle TN 49 CR 4712 on Thiruthuraipoondi-Thiruverumbur route within one week, keeping old vehicle as spare.

V.Gobu Vs The Regional Transport Authority — Property and Title | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.33845 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 03.12.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.33845 of 2025 and W.M.P.(MD)No.26746 of 2025

V.Gobu

... Petitioner

The Regional Transport Authority, Thanjavur District.

¶11

The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority Thanjavur District.

¶12

G.Dhanalakshmi ... Respondents

¶13

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to forthwith revive the order of replacement of the existing vehicle bearing Reg. No.TN-49 AM-0013 by TN-49 CR-4712 which was granted by the proceedings of the 1^st respondent in Progs. R.No.18537/A2/2025 dated 19.05.2025 and given effect to on 21.05.2025.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mrs.Radha Gopalan, Senior Counsel for Mr.A.Rahul For Respondents : Mr.M.Gangatharan, Govt. Advocate for R1 & R2 Mr.A.C.Asaithambi for R3

¶15

1/6

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.(MD) No.33845 of 2025

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This Writ Petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to forthwith revive the order of replacement of the existing vehicle bearing Reg. No.TN-49 AM-0013 by TN-49 CR-4712 which was granted by the proceedings of the 1^st respondent in Progs. R.No.18537/A2/2025 dated 19.05.2025 and given effect to on 21.05.2025.

¶20

2. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶21

would submit that initially the permit of the subject vehicle was transferred to the name of the petitioner on 05.03.2024. Thereafter, a replacement order was issued by the 1^st respondent on 19.05.2025. The third respondent has filed a Writ Petition before this Court in W.P. (MD)No.14578 of 2025 and this Court, by an order dated 04.06.2025, granted an interim injunction restraining the official respondents from entertaining any application from the petitioner for transferring or replacing the permit to any third party. This Court by order dated 07.08.2025, disposed of the said Writ Petition directing the third respondent to file a civil suit.

¶22

2/6

¶23

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

¶24

W.P.(MD) No.33845 of 2025

¶25

3. Under these circumstances, based on the interim

¶26

injunction granted by this Court on 04.06.2025 in W.P.(MD)No.14578 of 2025, which was filed by the third respondent, the 2^nd respondent has cancelled the replacement order by an order dated 29.07.2025. Since the old vehicle is not in a roadworthy condition and is getting repaired often, the petitioner is unable to provide continuous service to the travelling public. Further the replaced vehicle is a new vehicle and if the same is kept idle, it will lose its value. Hence, the petitioner is approached this Court with the above prayer.

¶27

4 . The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent would submit that the third respondent is none other than the sister of the petitioner and she has every right in the subject vehicle. He further submits that there was a family arrangement between the petitioner and the third respondent and a sum of Rs.2,50,00,000/- were to be settled by the petitioner. Hence, he opposes this Writ Petition.

¶28

5 . In reply, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that in

¶29

the event of replacement of vehicle, the old vehicle will be kept as it is and the same will be used as a spare one.

¶30

3/6

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.(MD) No.33845 of 2025

¶33

6. Taking into consideration of all these facts, this Court is

¶34

of the view that there is no impediment for the authorities concerned to permit the petitioner to run the replaced vehicle. Hence, this Court directs the respondents to permit the petitioner to run the replaced vehicle bearing registration No.TN 49 CR 4712, on the route “Thiruthuraipoondi to Thiruverumbur”, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Once the vehicle is replaced, the petitioner is directed to keep the old vehicle, without selling the same to the third parties and use the said vehicle as a spare, instead of keeping the said vehicle as idle. The rights of the third respondent will not be affected by any of the observations made by this Court in this order and she has every right to work out her remedy in the civil Court, as directed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.14578 of 2023.

¶35

With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed

¶36

of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶37

03.12.2025

¶38

Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No vsm Note: Issue order copy on 09.12.2025

¶39

4/6

¶40

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

¶41

W.P.(MD) No.33845 of 2025

¶42

¶43

The Regional Transport Authority, Thanjavur District.

¶44

The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority Thanjavur District.

¶45

5/6

¶46

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

¶47

W.P.(MD) No.33845 of 2025

¶48

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.

¶49

vsm

¶50

W.P.(MD)No.33845 of 2025

¶51

03.12.2025

¶52

6/6

¶53

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

V.Gobu v. The Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Gobu v. The Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madasamy.M Vs The District Registrar

Sethuraman Vs The District Collector

K.R.Krishnamoorthy Vs The Inspector General of Registration

A.Vedaramya Vs The District Collector

S.Rahmath Mariam Vs The Inspector General of Registration

Johnson Vs The Commissioner