State authorities cannot impose restrictions on National Highways as this power is vested exclusively with the Central Government.

ORDER :

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the fifth respondent dated 10.04.2026, whereby the operation of trucks carrying mining materials through Kanyakumari District has been restricted till the completion of the Kaliakkavilai to Kanyakumari National Highway expansion work (NH-47 from 43.000 kms to 96.714 kms).

2.The petitioner is operating 14-wheel and 18-wheel trucks with national permits. The petitioner had purchased the said trucks under hypothecation agreements by availing loans. The petitioner has been transporting construction materials such as cement, steel, rough stones, jelly stones, sand, M-sand, bricks, and chamber materials in and around Kanyakumari District and also to the State of Kerala with valid transit permits.

3.While so, the fourth respondent passed an order dated 20.07.2023 restricting the movement of mineral-laden heavy vehicles exceeding 10 wheels on all roads in Kanyakumari District from the neighboring Districts of Tenkasi, Tirunelveli and Thoothukudi. The said order was challenged by the Kanyakumari District Tipper Lorry Owners Association before this Court in W.P.(MD)No.18388 of 2023. This Court, by order dated 28.07.2023, directed the petitioner to submit a representation before the authorities expressing their difficulties regarding the restriction based solely on the number of wheels, upon which the authorities were directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders within a period of two weeks.

4.Pursuant to the said representation, the fifth respondent, by order dated 31.08.2023, rejected the request. The same was challenged before this Court in W.P.(MD)No.29464 of 2023 and connected batch cases, in which an interim stay was granted on 20.12.2023. However, the main writ petitions are still pending adjudication. Once again, by the impugned order dated 10.04.2026, the fifth respondent imposed restrictions on the operation of trucks carrying mining materials through Kanyakumari District.

5.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the fifth respondent has no jurisdiction to impose such a blanket restriction without following the procedures contemplated under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. According to the learned Senior Counsel, such restriction is contrary to law. Chapter VIII of the (Central Act 59 of 1988) deals with the “Control of Traffic.” As per Section 112 of the Act, only the State Government or an authority authorized by the State Government may impose speed limits. Therefore, the impugned restriction amounts to a clear violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

6.In support of his contention, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench of the Patna High Court in Bihar Truck Owners Association vs. State of Bihar and Others , reported in (2022) 3 BLJ 240 (PHC).

7.The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents, on instructions, submitted that though this Court granted an interim order in the earlier proceedings, the writ petitions have not yet been finally disposed of. Further, an accident occurred on 09.04.2026. Therefore, the fifth respondent conducted a meeting, obtained reports from the various concerned authorities, and thereafter passed orders restricting the operation of trucks carrying minor minerals. It is further submitted that the movement of such vehicles causes considerable inconvenience and disturbance to other commuters. Therefore, in order to prevent accidents and avoid inconveni