Disposed¶30

P.R. Venkatraman v. The Regional Transport officer

Madras HC1 Jul 2026WP/24714/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court; W.P.No.24714 of 2026; Article 226 mandamus; stage carriage permit Salem–Karur via Namakkal; RTO Namakkal (North) proceedings 03.05.1996 revising rival operator timings; representation dated 21.10.2025; direction to consider representation on merits within 8 weeks after hearing stakeholders; Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with a direction to the first respondent (Regional Transport Officer, Namakkal North) to consider the petitioner's representation dated 21.10.2025 on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, respondents 2 and 3, and such other stakeholders if necessary, within eight weeks from receipt of a copy of the order; no costs. ¶30

P.R. Venkatraman Vs The Regional Transport officer — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should issue directing the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 21.10.2025 and pass appropriate orders regarding the regulation of the consequential change in stage carriage timings arising out of the first respondent's proceedings dated 03.05.1996.

¶23

Court's answer

This Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 21.10.2025 on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, respondents 2 and 3, and such other stakeholders, if necessary.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

The aforesaid exercise (considering the representation and passing appropriate orders) shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, and no costs were awarded.

¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Madras (Hemant Chandangoudar, J.) — W.P.No.24714 of 2026, decided 01.07.2026: A holder of a stage carriage permit for the Salem–Karur via Namakkal route (valid up to 17.03.2028), whose service was allegedly affected by the Regional Transport Officer's proceedings dated 03.05.1996 revising the timings of a rival operator's stage carriage, sought a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing consideration of his representation dated 21.10.2025 for regulation of the consequential change in timings under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules. On the Government Counsel's submission, the Court disposed of the petition directing the first respondent to consider the representation on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner, respondents 2 and 3 and other stakeholders, if necessary, within eight weeks; no costs.

¶1

W.P.No.24714 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 01.07.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

W.P.No.24714 of 2026

¶7

P.R.Venkatraman S/o.P.R.Rajendran Proprietor – S.R.T.Bus Transport

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

vs.

¶10

The Regional Transport Officer Namakkal (North)

¶11

Selvaraj S/o.Palaniappan

¶12

The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Rep. By its Managing Director, Salem. … Respondents

¶13

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Mandamus, directing the 1^st respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 21.10.2025 and pass appropriate orders directing the 2^nd respondent to regulate the consequential change of timings as ordered in the proceedings of the 1^st respondent dated 03.05.1996 in terms of the relevant provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and Tamil Nadu Motor

¶14

Page Nos.1/5

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.No.24714 of 2026

¶17

Vehicles Rules.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Ganesan For Respondents : Mr.M.Sivavarthanan Government Counsel, for R1 Mr.M.Aswin Standing Counsel for R3

¶19

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

Mr. M. Sivavarthanan, learned Government Counsel, accepts notice

¶22

for the first respondent and Mr. M. Aswin, learned Standing Counsel, accepts notice for the third respondent. Since this writ petition is being disposed of without adversely affecting the rights of the second respondent, notice to the second respondent is dispensed with.

¶23

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 21.10.2025 and pass appropriate orders regarding the regulation of the consequential change in stage carriage timings arising out of the proceedings of the first respondent dated 03.05.1996, in accordance with

¶24

the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules.

¶25

Page Nos.2/5

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.No.24714 of 2026

¶28

The petitioner states that he is the holder of a stage carriage permit for the route Salem–Karur via Namakkal, which is valid up to 17.03.2028. According to the petitioner, by proceedings dated 03.05.1996, the first respondent revised the timings of the stage carriage operated by the second respondent, who is a rival operator on the same route. It is the petitioner’s case that the revised timings have adversely affected the operation of his service. Therefore, he submitted a representation dated 21.10.2025 requesting the first respondent to regulate the consequential change in timings. The grievance of the petitioner is that the said representation has not been considered till date.

¶29

Learned Government Counsel, on instructions, submits that the petitioner’s representation would be considered within such time as may be stipulated by this Court.

¶30

Recording the aforesaid submission, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 21.10.2025 on its own merits and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, respondents 2 and 3, and such other stakeholders, if necessary.

¶31

Page Nos.3/5

¶32

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

¶33

W.P.No.24714 of 2026

¶34