Madras High Court
S.M. Govindasamy vs P. Murugan on 19 June, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19.06.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA
Writ Petition No.3944 of 2012 and
M.P.No.1 of 2012
S.M. Govindasamy ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. P. Murugan
2. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal,
Chennai.
3. V.K.Palanisamy
4. The Regional Transport Authority,
Erode, Gobichattipalaym … Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India
praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining
to the orders in M.V.No.46 of 2009 dated 16.12.2010 passed by the second
respondent and consequential order dated 31.12.2010 in
R.No.18504/B4/2005 passed by the fourth respondent and quash the same
and pass orders.
For Petitioner : Mr.P. Kumaravel
For Respondent-1 :Mr.M. Palani
For Respondents 2 to 4 : Mrs. C. Meera Arumugam
Additional Government Pleader
Page No.1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/07/2025 08:22:31 pm )
ORDER
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, challenging the
permission granted to the first respondent to ply the mini bus in the route
Bhavani new bus stand to Siraimeetanpalayam (mettur pirivu junction)via
Anthiyur privu, Palaya bus stand pirivu, vaikalpam, Kalingaraypruam,
Elavamali Bank, Vetnary Hospital, Manakattur privu, Moolapalayam privu,
Elavamalai privu, Iyyapmpalaym privu, Virumandampalaym,
Moolapalayam privu, Karai Ellapalayam, Muniappal Koil, Chinnapuliyur
privu and G.D. Naidu Colony pirivu.
2.The petitioner is the Secretary of the society which is established
for the purpose of promoting public welfare and awareness in various fields
and registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Act. The petitioner objected
to the grant of mini bus permit to the first respondent during the year 2005
for the above said route. The petitioner's objections were not considered and
the permit was granted to the first respondent. The fourth respondent issued
the permit on 21.02.2006. To implement the said order, the petitioner filed
W.P.No.15852 of 2006 and this Court vide order dated 24.05.2006 directed
the second respondent therein to convene a conference and place the papers
Page No.2/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/07/2025 08:22:31 pm )
relating to the writ petition before the Regional Transport Authority, Erode
for considering the same and pass orders.
3. Thereafter, the third respondent herein filed a writ petition in
W.P.No.35176 of 2007 against the first respondent with a prayer not to
conduct the timing conference and the same was dismissed on 21.11.2007.
Against which a writ appeal was filed by the third respondent herein in
W.A.No.1537 of 2007 and the same was also dismissed on 07.12.2007.
Meanwhile, the third respondent herein preferred a Review Petition in
R.P.No.14 of 2007 before the second respondent against the permission
granted to the first respondent and stay was granted.
4. However, based on the order passed in W.P.No.15852 of 2006
dated 24.05.2006, the Secretary of the 4th respondent held timing conference
on 19.12.2007. Subsequently the papers were placed before the 4th
respondent on 27.12.2007. Thereafter, the 4th respondent ordered a re-survey
of the route length of the served sector, which was carried out on
31.12.2007. The officials jointly inspected the route and agreed upon the
Page No.3/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/07/2025 08:22:31 pm )
following lengths:-
Served Sector 3.950 +0.029 3.979
Unserved Sector 13.500
Total route length 17.479
5. At this juncture to get the permit at the earliest, the first respondent
herein filed W.P.No.25870 of 2008, in which an order was passed on
31.10.2008 directing the fourth respondent herein to pass appropriate final
orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
the order. Pursuant to this direction the fourth respondent rejected the
petitioner's application on 17.12.2008. Against which the petitioner
preferred a M.V Appeal No.46 of 2009. The second respondent herein heard
both the said appeal and Review Petition RP.No.14 of 2007 and passed a
order on 16.12.2010. In the said order, RP.No.14 of 2007 was dismissed by
confirming the order of the Regional Transport Authority, Erode District,
Gobichettipalayam Region, in Proc. R.No.18504/B4/2005, dated 17.12.2008
and Appeal No.46 of 2009 was allowed and the matter was remitted to the
fourth respondent to take further action in the light of the observation made
in W.P.Nos.15852 of 2006 and 25870 of 2008. In pursuance of the above
Page No.4/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/07/2025 08:22:31 pm )
order of the second respondent, the fourth respondent issued the mini bus
permit to the first respondent and confirmed the earlier order dated
21.02.2006.
6. According to the petitioner, he was issued with the min bus permit
on 31.12.2010 for a period of five years to ply the mini bus bearing
registration No.TN33AF 188. Aggrieved by the said order of the first
respondent, the petitioner has filed above said writ petition with the above
said relief.
7. The first respondent filed a detailed counter, wherein, it was stated
that the petitioner who is a party to the proceedings of the second
respondent dated 16.12.2010 had filed this writ petition, after a lapse of 16
months. Hence, the writ petition can be dismissed on the ground of latches.
The first respondent further submitted that the concerned authorities
conducted inspection and satisfied that the petitioner was eligible for the
permit, and thereafter, granted permission. It was further stated that there is
no merits in the writ petition and the same deserves to be dismissed.
8.The third respondent filed a counter stating that he agree with the
facts in the writ petition and also adopts all the grounds raised by the
Page No.5/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/07/2025 08:22:31 pm )
petitioner. According to the third respondent, as per the route map
produced, it is seen that the route permit for the mini bus of the first
respondent is overlapping the routes of four other mini bus operators. The
third respondent further states, that as per the orders passed in
W.A(MD).Nos 135 and 136 of 2006, dated 02.08.2006 a route already
served by mini bus is to be treated as served sector and therefore, the
permission granted to the first respondent is already a served sector as four
mini buses are plying with overlapping distance beyond 4 kms and for that
reason also the grant of permit is not sustainable in law and prays to set
aside the impugned order.
9.The fourth respondent was aware of the entire history of the case
and submits that the permission was granted in accordance with law and
compliance of the orders passed by this Court in various proceedings
initiated by the parties.
10.The learned counsel for the petitioner raised the following four
issues:
a. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the permission
granted to the first respondent was only on the basis of the order passed by
Page No.6/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/07/2025 08:22:31 pm )
the fourth respondent dated 22.12.2010 and the permission was granted
without conducting inspection. Hence, the permission was liable to set
aside.
b. The learned counsel further submits that the route for which the
permit was granted is already a served sector as already three mini buses
were already plying in the said route and the same was not taken into
consideration by the respondent.
c. The learned counsel also submits that the route was not fit for
plying the mini bus.
d. The learned counsel further submits that there is variation in the
route and also the bridge in the said route is not fit for mini bus operation.
For the above said reasons the said permission granted to the first
respondent is liable to set aside.
11.With regard to the contention of the petitioner that the permit was
granted without inspection, it is noted that in the impugned order dated
31.12.2010 it has been clearly stated that as per the order of the Regional
Transport authority, the entire route was re-inspected by the then Motor
Page No.7/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/07/2025 08:22:31 pm )
Veicles Inspectors, Gr.I, Bhavani, along with the officials of the Bus
Owners Association and the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
Limited. Hence, the contention of the petitioner that the permit was granted
without inspection is untenable.
12.With regard to the contention of the petitioner that the sector
being a served sector and the route is not fit for plying, it is submitted by
the learned counsel for the first respondent there is no evidence for the said
contention.
13. With regard to the variation of route, from the order passed by the
4th respondent on 21.02.2006, it is seen that there is no variation in the
route. Therefore, the contention with regard to variation of route is also
rejected.
14. The learned counsel for the first respondent in reply submits that
the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner is not an aggrieved
party and not an operator for the said bus. The learned counsel also relied on
the Judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of [Ayaaubkhan
Noorkhan Pathan Vs State of Maharasthra and others reported in (2013)
Page No.8/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/07/2025 08:22:31 pm )
4 Supreme Court cases 465]. The relevant portion of the Judgment is
extracted hereunder:
9. It is a settled legal proposition that a
stranger cannot be permitted to meddle in any
proceeding, unless he satisfied the authority/court,
that he falls within the category of aggrieved
persons. Only a person who has suffered, or suffers
from legal injury can challenge the act/action/order ,
etc in a Court of law. A writ petition under Article
226 of th constitution is maintainable either for the
purpose of enforcing a statutory or legal right, or
when there is a complaint by the appellant that there
has been a breach of statutory duty on the pat of the
authorities. Therefore, there must be a judicially
enforceable right available for enforcement, on the
basis of which writ jurisdiction is resorted to. The
Court can, of course, enforce the performance of a
statutory duty by a public body, using its writ
jurisdiction at the behest of a person, provided that
such person satisfies the Court that he has a legal
right to insist provided that such persons satisfied
the Court that he has a legal right to insist on such
performance. The existence of such right is a
condition precedent for invoking the writ jurisdiction
of the Courts. It is implicit in the exercise of invoking
the writ jurisdiction of the Courts. It is implicit in the
exercise of such extraordinary jurisdiction that the
relief prayed for must be one to enforce a legal right.
In fact, the existence of such right, is the foundation
of the exercise of the said jurisdiction by the Court.
The legal right that can be enforced must ordinarily
be the right of the appellant himself, who complains
of infraction of such right and approached the Court
for relief as regards the same .[ Vide State of Orissa
Page No.9/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/07/2025 08:22:31 pm )
Vs Madam Gopal Rungta, Saghir Ahmad Vs State of
U.P, Calcutta Gas co. ( proprietory) Ltd. Vs State of
W.B., Rajendra Singh V State of M.P and Tamilnadu
Mercantile Bank Shareholders Welfare Assn . (2) vs.
S.C. Sekar).
15. The learned counsel for the first respondent further submits that
the records were assailed and the permission was not granted only on the
basis of the orders passed by this Court and the orders passed by the second
respondent. He further submits that the petitioner was not an aggrieved
party and not an operator of the bus.
16.I have heard both the learned counsels and perused the materials
placed on record.
17. It is the contention of the petitioner that the permission was
granted based on the application dated 22.12.2010 without conducting the
inspection and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. In
support of the said contention the learned counsel relied on the second point
of the reference in the impugned order wherein, it was stated that the
Page No.10/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/07/2025 08:22:31 pm )
application date is 22.12.2010. As rightly contented by the learned counsel
for the petitioner, in the reference, it is stated that the application date is
22.12.2010. In fact it is only the date of the representation based on which
the permission was granted.
18. As rightly contented by the learned counsel for the petitioner the
petitioner submitted his representation on 22.12.2010 to implement the
order of the second respondent dated 16.12.2010.
19. It is seen from the affidavit filed by the petitioner that the
petitioner has not raised any pleading with regard to the issue that the
served sector was not taken into consideration, or that the route was not fit
for plying, it is only the 3rd respondent who was objecting as regards the
route falls within served sector. Even otherwise, as rightly contended by the
learned counsel for the petitioner, the 4th respondent, in the impugned order,
has clearly recorded that the length of the served sector is 03.95 kms and the
length of the unserved sector is 13.35kms.
20. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the first
respondent, the petitioner is neither an operator of a mini bus or a affected
Page No.11/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/07/2025 08:22:31 pm )
party and has no documents or evidence to prove his stand. The petitioner is
not aware of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs State of Maharasthra and others
reported in 4 Supreme Court cases 465, wherein, it is clearly stated that
only a person who has suffered, or suffers from a legal injury can challenge
an act/action/order , etc in a Court of law.
21. In the light of the above Judgment and the fact of the case, it is
made clear that the issues arising in this writ petition can be settled only by
way of filing the Public Interest litigation. Therefore, I find that the
petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the permission granted to the first
respondent.
22. In view of the above discussions, I find no merits in the writ
petition and the same deserved to be dismissed. Accordingly, this writ
petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
19.06.2025
smn
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
Page No.12/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/07/2025 08:22:31 pm )
To.
1. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal,
Chennai.
2. The Regional Transport Authority,
Erode, Gobichattipalaym
Page No.13/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/07/2025 08:22:31 pm )
N.MALA, J.
smn Writ Petition No.3944 of 2012 19.06.2025 Page No.14/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/07/2025 08:22:31 pm )