Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 41661
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J
Wiselin Jeyakumar – Appellant
Versus
The District Collector – Respondent
WMP(MD) Nos.10522 and 10523 of 2026 | WP(MD) No.14112 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.G.Aravinthan
For the Respondents:Mr.T.Amjad Khan for R1 and R2 Government Advocate
Statutory authorities must consider objections to transport permit notifications before finalizing decisions affecting existing operators.
Headnote:1. Statute Analysis: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging notification proceedings under Sections 71 and 72 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 208 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. Facts of the Case: Petitioner operating 11 mini buses challenged the second respondent's proceedings dated 05.03.2026 published in District Gazette on 09.03.2026 regarding Serial No.7 for mini bus stage carriage permits on the specified route, alleging non-compliance with statutory procedure and failure to consider objections.
Findings of Court:
Court found the petition challenging notification while respondent submitted that objections would be considered during application processing. 2.
Issues: Whether the impugned proceedings violate Sections 71 and 72 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rule 208 and whether petitioner's objections should be considered.
Ratio Decidendi: Court held that objections to notification must be considered on merits before finalizing permit grants to ensure compliance with statutory requirements. 3.
Result: Writ petition disposed with direction to first respondent to consider petitioner's objections while dealing with applications for the route and pass orders in accordance with law.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to transport permit notification for non-compliance with statutory procedure (Para 1) |
| 2. consent for final disposal at admission stage (Para 2) |
| 3. arguments presented by both sides on merits (Para 3) |
| 4. transport business operation and challenge to permit process (Para 4) |
| 5. government advocate submission on consideration of objections (Para 5) |
| 6. direction to consider objections and dispose petition (Para 6) |
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Date : 13/05/2026 CORAM The Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN and WMP(MD) Nos.10522 and 10523 of 2026 Wiselin Jeyakumar ... Petitioner Vs
1. The District Collector,, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil..
2. The Regional Transport Officer, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.. ... Respondents PRAYER :- Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings of the second respondent under Na.Ka.No. 21803/A2/2024 dated 05.03.2026, as published in the District Government Gazette issue No.6 dated 09.03.2026 issued by the first respondent and to quash the same in so far as it relates to Serial.No.7 are concerned, as illegal, arbitrary, perverse and contrary to law, and in total contravention of the Sections 71 and 72 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 208 of the Tamilnadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, and consequentially direct the second respondent to pass suitable orders on the representation of the petitioner dated
11.04.2026 within a time frame fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Aravinthan For Respondents : Mr.T.Amjad Khan for R1 and R2 Government Advocate
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned proceedings of the second respondent in Na.Ka.No. 21803/A2/2024 dated 05.03.2026, as published in the District Government Gazette issue No.6 dated 09.03.2026 issued by the first respondent insofar as it relates to Serial.No.7 is concerned as it is issued in total contravention of the Sections 71 and 72 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 208 of the Tamilnadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and to direct the second respondent to pass suitable orders on the representation of the petitioner dated 11.04.2026 within a time frame fixed by this Court.
2. By consent of both sides, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
4. The petitioner is doing transport business and operating 11 mini buses. Several persons applied for the grant of permit for stage carriage mini bus with the 2nd respondent in the route, namely, Vadasery Christopher Bus stand to Vellamodi Uykottu Sudalaimadasamy koil via Krishnakoil – Vetoornimadam – Parvathipuram – Peruvilai – Asaripallam – Second Gate – Mela Asaripallam – Pambanvilai – Santhapuram – Peyodu Channel – Saral Channel Church – Manavilai Channel Bridge – Sethuvoor Channel. Several applications were made for return route permit stating that there is unserved area of 16.4 km and only served area of 7.5 km. However, without following the procedure under the Act and Rules made thereunder, the 2nd respondent has passed the proceedings dated 05.03.2026 and 12.03.2026 and published in the special edition of the District Gazette on 09.03.2026 and 13.03.2026. Therefore, the petitioner submitted her objections. However, since the same was not considered so far, the petitioner has challenged the very notification itself in the present writ petition.
5. The learned Government Advocate, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner's objection will be duly considered, while considering the applications.
6. In view of the above, the first respondent is directed to consider the objections of the petitioner while dealing with the applications received from several persons for the route allotted to S.No.7 in the notification and pass orders on meri
