IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20-01-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN M.Sridhar .. Petitioner(s)

Vs.

1. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Nagapattinam.

2. The Regional Transport Officer, Nagapattinam. .. Respondents 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.A2/22668/95 dated 12.04.1996 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 Mr.G.Shanmugam. He had obtained a stage carriage permit in respect of the vehicle bearing Reg.No.TN.50.P.5577. The permit enabled Mr.G.Shanmugam to ply on the route from Nagore to Sethubavachatram (via.) Nagapattinam, Velanganni Church, Tiruthuraipoondi, Muthupet, Thambikottai and Adirampattinam. The said Mr.Shanmugam applied for variation seeking extension of the route from Nagore to Sethubavachatram. The said application for variation was favourably considered by the Regional Transport Authority, Nagapattinam and orders were issued on 27.02.1996. By proceedings dated 12.04.1996, the Secretary to the Regional Transport Authority, Nagapattinam, passed consequential proceedings, fixing the timings, for the aforesaid variation.

2. Subsequently, the Legislature of the State of Tamil Nadu had 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 Authorities during the period from 24.01.1996 to 24.05.1996 stood cancelled. Consequently, the variation obtained by Mr.G.Shanmugam also stood nullified.

3. Aggrieved by this 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.Shanmugam stood revived. The respondents ought to have implemented the order granting variation, immediately upon pronouncement of the Judgment. However, the same was not done. The respondents did not give effect to the orders passed by the Regional Transport Authority dated

27.02.1996 and 12.04.1996 respectively.

4. Subsequently, Mr.G.Shanmugam transferred the permit in favour of Mrs.Gomath. Thereafter, Mrs.Gomathi transferred the permit in favour of the writ petitioner. The same was recognized by the proceedings of the Regional Transport Authority, Nagapattinam, on 08.11.2022. The petitioner, noticing that the order granting variation had not been complied with, has approached this Court seeking for implementation of the same.

5. It is pertinent to point out that the permit of the petitioner is still in force and is valid till 14.05.2027. The petitioner addressed a representation to the respondents on 20.10.2006, seeking implementation and restoration of the proceedings of the Regional Transport Authority granting variation. As no action has been initiated, the petitioner is before this Court.

6. 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.

7. When I took up the matter for hearing, Mr.M.Shajahan, produced written instructions. After admitting all the aforesaid facts, the respondents have pleaded that they were not in a position to implement the order immediately, on account