Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Balakrishnan Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep by — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

Home
Madras HC
2025
Balakrishnan Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep byBalakrishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu rep by

Disposed¶38

Balakrishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu rep by

Madras HC4 Sept 2025WP(MD)/5507/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, Madurai Bench — W.P.(MD)No.5507 of 2022, Balakrishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu and others (Managing Directors of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporations) — decided 04.09.2025 by Abdul Quddhose, J. Writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking direction to change the Uniform Standing Rules in the name of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation based on petitioner's representation dated 27.12.2021. Petition closed without costs as infructuous/moot: prayer achieved by G.O.(Ms.)No.162, Transport Department (C1), dated 15.12.2022. Advocates: A.Rajaram for petitioner; S.S.Madhavan, Additional Government Pleader for R1 & R2; K.Jagadees Balan, Standing Counsel for R7. No case law cited; no quantum involved.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief granted by the Court; the writ petition was closed without costs as the prayer stood achieved by G.O.(Ms.)No.162, Transport Department (C1), dated 15.12.2022.

Why is it important?

In view of the prayer sought for in the writ petition having been achieved by the subsequent proceedings of the respondent Corporation through G.O.(Ms.)No.162, Transport Department (C1), dated 15.12.2022, nothing survives for further adjudication; hence the writ petition is closed, with no costs. ¶38

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief granted by the Court; the writ petition was closed without costs as the prayer stood achieved by G.O.(Ms.)No.162, Transport Department (C1), dated 15.12.2022.

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing the respondents to change the Uniform Standing Rules in the present Transport Corporation name of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 27.12.2021.

Ratio / Principle

In view of the prayer sought for in the writ petition having been achieved by the subsequent proceedings of the respondent Corporation through G.O.(Ms.)No.162, Transport Department (C1), dated 15.12.2022, nothing survives for further adjudication; hence the writ petition is closed, with no costs.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, W.P.(MD)No.5507 of 2022) closed as having become infructuous — Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents, including the State of Tamil Nadu (Transport Department) and various Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporations, to change the Uniform Standing Rules in the present Transport Corporation name, on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 27.12.2021 — Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prayer sought for has been achieved by the subsequent proceedings of the respondent Corporation through G.O.(Ms.)No.162, Transport Department (C1), dated 15.12.2022 — Held: in view of the same, nothing survives for further adjudication; writ petition closed; no costs (Abdul Quddhose, J., 04.09.2025).

A

W.P.(MD)No.5507 of 2022

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 04.09.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

W.P.(MD)No.5507 of 2022

Balakrishnan

... Petitioner

/Vs./

State of Tamil Nadu Rep By

The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Transport Department, Fort. St. George, Chennai-600009.

State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secretary to Government, Transport Department, Fort. St. George, Chennai-600009.

The Managing Director,

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Managara Transport Corporation, Chennai.

The Managing Director,

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Tirunelveli Division, Tirunelveli.

The Managing Director,

Tamil Nadu State Express Transport Corporation, Chennai.

The Managing Director,

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Villuppuram Division, Villuppuram.

1/5

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

W.P.(MD)No.5507 of 2022

The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Kumbakonam Division, Kumbakonam.

The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Salem Division, Salem.

9. The Managing Director,

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Coimbatore Division, Coimbatore.

The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Madurai Division, Madurai.

... Respondents

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to change the Uniform Standing Rules in the present Transport Corporation name of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, on the basis of the Petitioners representation dated 27.12.2021

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Rajaram For R1 & R2 : Mr.S.S.Madhavan Additional Government Pleader For R7 : Mr.K.Jagadees Balan Standing Counsel

2/5

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

W.P.(MD)No.5507 of 2022

ORDER

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that prayer

sought for in this writ petition has been achieved by the subsequent proceedings of the respondent Corporation through G.O.(Ms.)No.162, Transport Department (C1), dated 15.12.2022.

2 . In view of same, nothing survives for further adjudication in this writ petition. Hence, this writ petition is closed. No costs.

04.09.2025

Index : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No CM

3/5

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

W.P.(MD)No.5507 of 2022

TO:

State of Tamil Nadu Rep By The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Transport Department, Fort. St. George, Chennai-600009.

State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secretary to Government, Transport Department, Fort. St. George, Chennai-600009.

4/5

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

W.P.(MD)No.5507 of 2022

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.

CM

Order made in W.P.(MD)No.5507 of 2022

Dated: 04.09.2025

5/5

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

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether a writ of mandamus should be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing the respondents to change the Uniform Standing Rules in the present Transport Corporation name of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 27.12.2021.¶30

Statutes considered

1 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226¶30

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Prior proceeding
Petitioner made a representation dated 27.12.2021 to the respondents, on the basis of which the writ of mandamus was sought.¶30
Prior proceeding
Subsequent proceedings of the respondent Corporation through G.O.(Ms.)No.162, Transport Department (C1), dated 15.12.2022, by which the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prayer sought in the writ petition has been achieved.¶37

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
Balakrishnan¶7
A.Rajaram
respondent
State of Tamil Nadu Rep By The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Transport Department, Fort. St. George, Chennai-600009.¶11
S.S.Madhavan
respondent
State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secretary to Government, Transport Department, Fort. St. George, Chennai-600009.¶12
S.S.Madhavan
respondent
The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Managara Transport Corporation, Chennai.¶14
respondent
The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Tirunelveli Division, Tirunelveli.¶16
respondent
The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Express Transport Corporation, Chennai.¶18
respondent
The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Villuppuram Division, Villuppuram.¶20
respondent
The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Kumbakonam Division, Kumbakonam.¶24
K.Jagadees Balan
respondent
The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Salem Division, Salem.¶25
respondent
The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Coimbatore Division, Coimbatore.¶27
respondent
The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Madurai Division, Madurai.¶28

Coram

AI extract

Abdul Quddhoseauthor¶50

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Madras HC
Decided on: 4 Sept 2025 · September
Registered: 25 Mar 2022
Case no.: WP(MD)/5507/2022
CNR: HCMD010267332022
Topic: Writ and Judicial Review
Bench: Abdul Quddhose
Disposal: CLOSED
Case type: W.P.(MD)

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Abdul Quddhose

Abujahir Raja Vs The General Manager
3 Sept 2025
Sadasivam.S Vs the Principal Secretary/State Tax Commissioner
3 Sept 2025
Prabhavathi.S Vs the Principal Secretary to Government
3 Sept 2025
Prakash Vs The Vice Chancellor/ Registrar
4 Sept 2025
Vincent.a Vs The Executive Officer
4 Sept 2025
Mathavan.C Vs The State of Tamil Nadu
4 Sept 2025

Cite this judgement

Balakrishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu rep by, WP(MD)/5507/2022 (MAD), decided on 4 September 2025.

The Madras High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes1

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226

View all statutes

Procedural history2

Petitioner made a representation dated 27.12.2021 to the respondents, on the basis of which the writ of mandamus was sought.
Subsequent proceedings of the respondent Corporation through G.O.(Ms.)No.162, Transport Department (C1), dated 15.12.2022, by which the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prayer sought in the writ petition has been achieved.

View full history

Bench / Coram

Abdul Quddhose

Parties & counsel