[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Manikanda Moorthy vs The Regional Transport Authority Cum ... on 16 March, 2026
Author: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Bench: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
W.P(MD)No. 6846 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED :16.03.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.P(MD)No. 6846 of 2026
Manikanda Moorthy ... Petitioner
Vs
1. The Regional Transport Authority Cum District Collector,
District Collector,
O/o Collectorate,
Virudhunagar.
2. The Regional Transport Officer,
Sivakasi. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the
respondents to inspect the route between Sivakasi Hindu Match Works
Poochakkapatti Via. Ganesh Theatre, Sivakasi Bus Stand, PRC Deport,
Sivakamipuram, Perapatti, North Meenampatti, South Meenampatti,
Juplinagar, Sundharajapuram, Perapatti, Andiyapuram, Vel Fire Works,
Vijay Fire Works, Jayaseeli Fire Works, Lakshmipuram and directing the
respondents to not to grant any new permit to the above said routes by
considering the petitioner’s representation dated 23.02.2026.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Padmanabhan
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2026 12:00:13 pm )
W.P(MD)No. 6846 of 2026
For Respondents : Mr.P.Thambidurai
Government Advocate
ORDER
This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus directing the respondent
to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 23.02.2026.
2. When the matter came up for hearing, the learned Government
Advocate produced an order passed by the second respondent, namely
the Regional Transport Officer and would submit that the second
respondent had considered the petitioner’s representation that is
submitted in respect of the grant of permits to third parties in the route
operated by the petitioner.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the route is
operated entirely by the petitioner and there is no scope for issuing
permits to the third parties.
4. Considering the argument that it is only the first responder,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2026 12:00:13 pm )
namely the Regional Transport Authority-cum-District Collector, who
has jurisdiction to decide the dispute as per Section 89 of the Act, to
decide and if only the first respondent decides the issue, thereafter, an
appeal remedy is also provided under the Act.
5. In view of the same, this writ petition is disposed of on the
following terms:
(a) Notwithstanding the order passed by the second respondent, the
first respondent shall take up the representation of the petitioner
dated 23.02.2026 for the enquiry and due regard can also be had to
the version of the second respondent during the enquiry;
(b) The petitioner and also the third parties shall be given an
opportunity in the course of the enquiry. The petitioner as well as
the third parties shall appear before the first respondent for the
enquiry;
(c) After consideration of the case of the petitioner, the reply of the
Regional Transport Officer and the objections that may be put
forth by the third parties, let the first respondent pass orders in
accordance with law. Let the said exercise be completed within a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2026 12:00:13 pm )
period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of the web
copy of the order, without waiting for the certified copy of the
order; and
(d) No costs.
NCC : Yes/No 16.03.2026
apd
To
1. The Regional Transport Authority Cum District Collector,
District Collector,
O/o Collectorate,
Virudhunagar.
2. The Regional Transport Officer,
Sivakasi.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2026 12:00:13 pm )
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY.,J.
apd
ORDER MADE IN
16.03.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2026 12:00:13 pm )
