IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20-01-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN Divyaa Transport Rep. by its Proprietor Ln.S.Jayapriya 20/30 Perumal South Street, Nagapattinam 611001.

.. Petitioner(s)

Vs.

1. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Nagapattinam.

2. The Regional Transport Officer, Nagapattinam.

.. Respondent(s)

Prayer : This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to implement the order granting variation in favour the petitioner made in R.No.A2/19367/95 dated 29.03.1996 in accordance with the judgment of this Court made in W.P.No. 23854 of 2001 etc., batch dated 7.8.2023.

For Petitioner : Mrs.Bhargavi Gopalan For Respondents : Mr. M. Shajahan Spl.Govt.Pleader

Order

The petitioner’s predecessor was one Ramalingam. He had obtained a stage carriage permit in respect of the vehicle bearing Reg.No.TN-51/B-5151 since replaced by vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-51/AA-4017. The permit enabled Mr.Ramalingam to ply on the route from Nagapattinam to Sannanallur (via) Nagore, Thittacherry, Thirumagal. Mr.Ramalingam applied for variation seeking extension of the route from Sannanallur to Mayiladuthurai. The said application for variation was favourably considered by the Regional Transport Authority, Nagapattinam and orders were issued on 29.03.1996. By proceedings dated 02.05.1996, the Secretary to the Regional Transport Authority, Nagapattinam, also passed consequential proceedings, fixing the timings for the aforesaid variation.

2. Subsequently, the Legislature of the State of Tamil Nadu enacted the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicle (Special Provisions) ( Cancellation of Variation of Conditions of Permit) Act, 1996 ( Tamil Nadu Act 19 of 1996). By virtue of the said enactment, all variations granted by the Regional Transport Authority during the period from 24.01.1996 to 24.05.1996 stood cancelled. Consequently, the variation obtained by Mr.Ramalingam also stood nullified.

3. Aggrieved by the said legislation, private bus operators preferred a batch of writ petitions in W.P.No.23854 of 2001 etc, before this Court. These writ petitions challenged the constitutional validity of the said Act. A Division Bench of this Court in Mr.R.Srinivasan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu 2004 (2) TN MAC 68 (DB) declared the Act unconstitutional on 07.08.2003. Since the variation had been cancelled only on account of the said Act, which was subsequently struck down, the earlier valid order passed in favour of Mr.Ramalingam stood revived. The respondents ought to have implemented the said order granting variation, immediately upon pronouncement of the Judgment. However, the same was not done. Soon thereafter, Mr.Ramalingam, the original permit holder, passed away and his estate was succeeded by one Tmt.Alamelu. Even during her lifetime, the respondents did not restore the orders passed by the Regional Transport Authority dated 29.03.1996 and 02.05.1996. The said Alamelu transferred the permit in favour of the writ petitioner. The same was recognized by the proceedings of the Regional Transport Authority, Nagapattinam on 30.09.2011. The petitioner, noticing that the order granting the variation, has not been complied with, has approached this Court seeking for implementation of the same.

4. It is pertinent to point out that the permit of the petitioner is still in force and is valid till 12.08.2029. The petitioner addressed a representation to the respondents on 05.12.2025, seeking implementation and restoration of the proceedings of the Regional Transport Authority of the year 1996. As no action has been initiated, the petitioner is before this Court.

5. When the matter came up for admission on 07.01.2026, Mr.M.Shajahan, learned Special Government Pleader reported that he would get instructions from the respondents. Hence, the matter was listed today.

6. When I took up the matter for hearing, Mr.M.Shajahan produced written instructions. After admitt