Writ petitions are not maintainable when an effective alternative remedy exists, particularly in cases involving disputed factual issues.

JUDGMENT :

N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.

Aggrieved by the order passed in W.P(MD)No.11358 of 2020, dated 21.04.2021, the first and second respondents in the Writ Petition had filed W.A(MD)Nos.1738 and 1708 of 2021, respectively.

2. For the sake of convenience, the status of the parties are referred as Writ Petitioner and respondents, as referred in the Writ Petition.

3. The Writ Petitioner had filed the above Writ Petition challenging the impugned proceedings passed by the first respondent in R.No.105630/A2/2005, dated 18.06.2020. The case of the Writ Petitioner is that he had applied for permit to operate minibus from Puthanatham to Kaulpannai on 04.12.2002. As no order was passed by the first respondent, a Writ Petition was filed in W.P.No.1786 of 2003 and a direction was issued to the authority to consider the same.

4. Thereafter, the Writ Petitioner had filed an application seeking permit for a modified route from Puthanatham to Kadaipitchampatti. The authority had rejected the said application on 28.07.2003. Aggrieved by the same, the Writ Petitioner had filed an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and the said appeal was allowed on 01.11.2004 with a direction to the first respondent to consider the modified route. The said remand order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal was challenged in W.P.No.37200 of 2004 and the same was dismissed on 07.05.2005. The first respondent at the time of considering the application of the Writ Petitioner had concluded that there was a overlapping served sector, which exceeded the permitted limit of 4 km.

5. In the meanwhile, G.O.(Ms)No.136, Home (Transport III) Department, dated 23.02.2011, was issued and a new comprehensive scheme was issued. The Writ Petitioner's application was once again rejected on 30.05.2011 by referring the aforesaid Government Order. Again, the Writ Petitioner had filed a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.5614 of 2012 challenging the said Government Order. The said Writ Petition was came to be closed by referring that the said Government Order was already quashed in W.P.(MD)No.2893 of 2011. After several round of litigations, as per the direction of this Court in W.P(MD)No. 19846 of 2019, the Writ Petitioner's application for grant of minibus stage carriage permit was once again taken up and vide impugned order in the Writ Petition, the Writ Petitioner's request was came to be rejected. Hence, the Writ Petitioner has challenged the impugned order in the present Writ Petition.

6. The learned Single Judge after hearing the Writ Petitioner and the respondents had allowed the Writ Petition by considering the case of the Writ Petitioner that the distance sought by the Writ Petitioner, which comes to an extent of 8.2 kms under sector, but, as per the objection of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, the served distance was analysed and found that it is only 3.2 km. A reliance was made based an impression was created, as if a minibus bearing Reg.No.TN-49 7677 is plying on the modified route. However, by way of an information received under the Right to Information Act, the Writ Petitioner had found that one Mariya Pushpam is having a permit from Sukkampatti to Silambampatty (via) Sellampatty, Selanayakkanpatty, Kanaivaipatti, Pungunisipatty, Puthanatham High School, Marungapurai Road, Puthanatham, Karuncholapatty Pirivu, Karuncholapatty, Maniyankurichi Road and Maniyankurichi and found that the route referred in the information with regard to the minibus having Reg.No.TN-49 7677, has no relevance to the route sought by the Writ Petitioner.

7. The learned Single Judge further observed that the second respondent also plying a bus having stage carriage moffussil bus permit from Vedachandur to Trichy (via) Ayyalur, Puthanatham and Manaparai with IST and that the second respondent has no locus standi to oppose the grant of permit in favour of the Writ Petitioner. The learned Single Judge further noted that a report, dated 17.05.2009, was submitted by the Grade-I Motor Veh