BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 16-03-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY and W.M.P(MD).Nos.14231 and 14232 of 2025 M.Abdullah ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Regional Transport Authority cum District Collector, Tiruchirappalli District, Tiruchirappalli - 1.

2. The Regional Transport Officer, Trichy West, Pirattiyur, Ramji Nagar Post, Tiruchirappalli - 9.

3. Subbulakshmi D. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned permit issued by the 1st respondent in Permit No.08/TRY/MB/2025 dated 19.06.2025 to the Mini Bus bearing Registration No. TN-63 J-7678 and quash the portion of the migration route from Puthanatham to Karaikulam via, Nallaponnampatti, Ponnusangampatti, Vadakkipatti and Karuppur as illegal and for other reliefs and pass such further or other orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.

For Petitioner : Mr.A.C.Asaithambi For R1 and R2 : Mr.N.Ramesh Arumugam Government Advocate For R3 : Mr.A.Vadivel ORDER The writ petition is filed to quash the impugned order dated

19.06.2025 passed by the 1^st respondent.

2. The impugned order grants Mini Bus permit for the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-63J-7678 belonging to the 3^rd respondent for the route Sukkampatti to Kosipatty.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that he was operating under the pre-existing minibus scheme on the route between Kurumalaipatti and Karaikulam. The petitioner had also migrated from the existing scheme to the new scheme when it was introduced. The 3^rd respondent was originally operating its services between Sukkampatti and Kosipatty.

On the said route, the service reaches Puthanatham mid-way, and from there the original route proceeds through Karuncholaipatti Pirivu, Karuncholaipatti, Kadaiyampatty, Maniyankurichi, and Silampampatti before ultimately reaching Kosipatty. However, though the 3^rd respondent had applied only for migration of her existing route, at the time of grant under the new scheme, the 3^rd respondent is now operating from Puthanatham through a portion of the petitioner’s route up to Karaikulam, before proceeding further to Kosipatty. Consequently, in the newly granted route, a stretch of about 5.7 kilometers overlaps with the sector already served by the petitioner. The petitioner is operating more than four single trips per day on the said route. Therefore, such a grant of route to the 3^rd respondent ought not to have been permitted at the time of migration.

4. In reply thereof, the learned government advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that the petitioner had migrated under the new scheme and accordingly he has been granted the route. When the 3^rd respondent applied, the inspection was made and a route has been arrived and the same was also published in the Gazette. Accordingly, the 3^rd respondent has surrendered the existing license and migrated to the new route under the scheme. The same was also granted as per procedure and there is no violation.

5. It is in the background, it is contended that as against the order there is a remedy of appeal/revision available under Sections 89 or

90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as the case may be.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent would submit that when she applied for migration, an inspection of the route was conducted by the authorities. Her original route was a total of 12.9 kilometers. Under the new scheme, the migrated route was approved between Sukkampatti and Kosipatty, totaling 23.9 kilometers, of which 15.7 kilometers constitute an unserved sector. Therefore, the grant of the migrated route is permissible.

7. In reply thereof, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondents have also failed to satisfy the requirement that at least 1.5 kilometers of the route should c