Private operators cannot obtain route permits under a notified scheme unless explicitly authorized by the scheme itself, reinforcing the exclusivity of state-operated services on those routes.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.S.Ramesh, learned Government Advocate, who takes notice for the respondent No.1 and Mr.J.Nanthakumar, for the respondent No.2. 2.Challenging the impugned order of the first respondent dated 21.03.2024, rejecting the petition seeking route permit under Section 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as -M.V. Act-) for running the stage carriage bus from Periyakulam Bus Stand to Sothuparai and for a consequential direction to the 1st respondent to rehear the petitioner to grant of stage carriage permit on the said route, this writ petition has been filed.

3.The case of the petitioner is that originally his father was holding a route permit for running the stage carriage bus and subsequently by way of family partition, the permits were transferred to the paternal uncle of the petitioner. When the petitioner-s father made an application for grant of stage carriage permit for Periyakulam Bus Stand to Sothuparai route, the same was rejected by the Regional Transport Authority (hereinafter referred to as R.T.A) and by way of appeal, the petitioner-s father approached the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras (hereinafter referred to as Appellate Tribunal) and in appeal, the matter was remanded back to the respondent authority for reconsideration and the same was again rejected. Subsequently the petitioner-s father filed writ petition in WP No.8098/1994 and this Court disposed the said writ petition with liberty to the petitioner therein to make application for grant of temporary permit under Section 104 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In the interregnum, the petitioner-s father died on 06.12.2012 and the petitioner herein has filed an application to the respondent seeking temporary permit under of the Act for the same route, which was also rejected. Against the rejection, the petitioner also filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal and the appeal was allowed directing the respondent to consider grant of temporary permit. However, the authority has not granted temporary permit and rejected the application.

Thereafter, one more writ petition was filed by him before this Court in WP No.4369/2019 and the same was dismissed on 11.08.2021, against which, an appeal in WA(MD)No.1037/2023 is filed and is pending before this Court.

4. While so, the petitioner has filed another application dated 31.07.2023 before the R.T.A, Theni, for granting regular permit for five years for the very same route , ie., Periyakulam Bus Stand to Sothuparai. This was taken up for consideration by the first respondent and as such the impugned order came to be passed, challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is true that earlier, the petitioner-s father as well as the petitioner herein have approached this Court seeking permit for the very same route, which were dismissed. However, the impugned proceedings came to be passed, wherein, no proper opportunity was given to the petitioner for submitting his case and the representation was also dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has submitted defective application and no opportunity was given to rectify the same. Hence, on these grounds, he would submit that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

6. The learned Government Advocate for the first respondent submits that this is a third round of litigation. Earlier, the petitioner-s father submitted application for the very same route, appeal was also filed before the Tribunal, after dismissal of appeal, writ petition was also filed and dismissed. In the second round, the petitioner-s application was rejected and the same was challenged and the writ petition was also dismissed and an intra Court appeal is still pending with regard to temporary permit. He would submit that now, the petitioner has once again raised a new cause of action by claiming permanent permit for the very same route, in spite of the f