P.R. Venkatraman v. The Regional Transport Officer

O R D E R Mr. M. Sivavarthanan, learned Government Counsel, accepts notice for the first respondent and Mr. M. Aswin, learned Standing Counsel, accepts notice for the third respondent. Since this writ petition is being disposed of without adversely affecting the rights of the second respondent, notice to the second respondent is dispensed with.

¶2The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 21.10.2025 and pass appropriate orders regarding the regulation of the consequential change in stage carriage timings arising out of the proceedings of the first respondent dated 03.05.1996, in accordance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules. Page Nos.3/5

¶3The petitioner states that he is the holder of a stage carriage permit for the route Salem–Karur via Namakkal, which is valid up to 17.03.2028. According to the petitioner, by proceedings dated 03.05.1996, the first respondent revised the timings of the stage carriage operated by the second respondent, who is a rival operator on the same route. It is the petitioner's case that the revised timings have adversely affected the operation of his service. Therefore, he submitted a representation dated 21.10.2025 requesting the first respondent to regulate the consequential change in timings. The grievance of the petitioner is that the said representation has not been considered till date.

¶4Learned Government Counsel, on instructions, submits that the petitioner's representation would be considered within such time as may be stipulated by this Court.

¶5Recording the aforesaid submission, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 21.10.2025 on its own merits and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, respondents 2 and 3, and such other stakeholders, if necessary. Page Nos.4/5

¶6The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of eight

(8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

01.07.2026 Speaking / Non-speaking order Index : Yes / No mk To

¶1The Regional Transport Officer Namakkal (North)

¶2The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Rep. By its Managing Director, Salem. Page Nos.5/5 HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J., mk

01.07.2026

Page Nos.1/5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 01.07.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR P.R.Venkatraman S/o.P.R.Rajendran Proprietor – S.R.T.Bus Transport ... Petitioner vs. 1. The Regional Transport Officer Namakkal (North) 2. Selvaraj S/o.Palaniappan 3. The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Rep. By its Managing Director, Salem. … Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 21.10.2025 and pass appropriate orders directing the 2nd respondent to regulate the consequential change of timings as ordered in the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 03.05.1996 in terms of the relevant provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and Tamil Nadu Motor Page Nos.2/5 Vehicles Rules. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Ganesan For Respondents : Mr.M.Sivavarthanan Government Counsel, for R1 Mr.M.Aswin Standing Counsel for R3 *****