Madras High Court
M.Abdullah vs The Regional Transport Authority Cum ... on 16 March, 2026
Author: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Bench: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
W.P.(MD).No.18583 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 16-03-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.P.(MD).No.18583 of 2025
and
W.M.P(MD).Nos.14231 and 14232 of 2025
M.Abdullah ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Regional Transport Authority cum District Collector,
Tiruchirappalli District,
Tiruchirappalli - 1.
2. The Regional Transport Officer,
Trichy West,
Pirattiyur,
Ramji Nagar Post,
Tiruchirappalli - 9.
3. Subbulakshmi D. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the
records relating to the impugned permit issued by the 1st respondent in
Permit No.08/TRY/MB/2025 dated 19.06.2025 to the Mini Bus bearing
Registration No. TN-63 J-7678 and quash the portion of the migration
route from Puthanatham to Karaikulam via, Nallaponnampatti,
Ponnusangampatti, Vadakkipatti and Karuppur as illegal and for other
reliefs and pass such further or other orders as this Honble Court may
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2026 03:37:29 pm )
W.P.(MD).No.18583 of 2025
deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render
justice.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.C.Asaithambi
For R1 and R2 : Mr.N.Ramesh Arumugam
Government Advocate
For R3 : Mr.A.Vadivel
ORDER
The writ petition is filed to quash the impugned order dated 19.06.2025 passed by the 1st respondent.
2. The impugned order grants Mini Bus permit for the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-63J-7678 belonging to the 3rd respondent for the route Sukkampatti to Kosipatty.
3. The contention of the petitioner is that he was operating under the pre-existing minibus scheme on the route between Kurumalaipatti and Karaikulam. The petitioner had also migrated from the existing scheme to the new scheme when it was introduced. The 3rd respondent was originally operating its services between Sukkampatti and Kosipatty. 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2026 03:37:29 pm ) W.P.(MD).No.18583 of 2025 On the said route, the service reaches Puthanatham mid-way, and from there the original route proceeds through Karuncholaipatti Pirivu, Karuncholaipatti, Kadaiyampatty, Maniyankurichi, and Silampampatti before ultimately reaching Kosipatty. However, though the 3rd respondent had applied only for migration of her existing route, at the time of grant under the new scheme, the 3rd respondent is now operating from Puthanatham through a portion of the petitioner’s route up to Karaikulam, before proceeding further to Kosipatty. Consequently, in the newly granted route, a stretch of about 5.7 kilometers overlaps with the sector already served by the petitioner. The petitioner is operating more than four single trips per day on the said route. Therefore, such a grant of route to the 3rd respondent ought not to have been permitted at the time of migration.
4. In reply thereof, the learned government advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that the petitioner had migrated under the new scheme and accordingly he has been granted the route. When the 3rd respondent applied, the inspection was made and a route has been arrived and the same was also published in the Gazette. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent has surrendered the existing license and 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2026 03:37:29 pm ) W.P.(MD).No.18583 of 2025 migrated to the new route under the scheme. The same was also granted as per procedure and there is no violation.
5. It is in the background, it is contended that as against the order there is a remedy of appeal/revision available under Sections 89 or 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as the case may be.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent would submit that when she applied for migration, an inspection of the route was conducted by the authorities. Her original route was a total of 12.9 kilometers. Under the new scheme, the migrated route was approved between Sukkampatti and Kosipatty, totaling 23.9 kilometers, of which 15.7 kilometers constitute an unserved sector. Therefore, the grant of the migrated route is permissible.
7. In reply thereof, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondents have also failed to satisfy the requirement that at least 1.5 kilometers of the route should constitute a new sector where no prior service exists.
4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2026 03:37:29 pm ) W.P.(MD).No.18583 of 2025
8. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the materials records of the case.
9. Since, the questions raised are that of mixed question of facts and law, it would be more appropriate for the petitioner to be relegated to the alternative remedy available under law.
10. In view thereof, keeping the liberty open to the petitioner to approach the State Appellate Tribunal, by way of appropriate appeal/revision under Sections 89 or 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as the case may be, this writ petition stands disposed of.
11. It is pleaded that the petitioner has to be issued with the certified copy of the permit granted for the purpose of filing such appeal/revision. Within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the web copy of the order, without waiting for the certified copy of the order, the certified copy of the grant of approval of the route and grant of permit to the 3rd respondent under the new scheme shall be furnished to the petitioner.
5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2026 03:37:29 pm ) W.P.(MD).No.18583 of 2025
12. With the above directions and observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
16.03.2026 Index: Yes Speaking Order: Yes Neutral Citation: No rgm 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2026 03:37:29 pm ) W.P.(MD).No.18583 of 2025 To
1. The Regional Transport Authority cum District Collector, Tiruchirappalli District, Tiruchirappalli - 1.
2. The Regional Transport Officer, Trichy West, Pirattiyur, Ramji Nagar Post, Tiruchirappalli - 9.
7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2026 03:37:29 pm ) W.P.(MD).No.18583 of 2025 D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
rgm W.P.(MD).No.18583 of 2025 and W.M.P(MD).Nos.14231 and 14232 of 2025 16.03.2026 8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2026 03:37:29 pm )