[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Libin Ponnuswamy Leela vs The National Highways Authority Of ... on 13 May, 2026
Author: G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
W.P(MD)No.14168 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 13.05.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P(MD)No.14168 of 2026
and
W.M.P(MD)Nos.10578 & 10579 of 2026
Libin Ponnuswamy Leela ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The National Highways Authority of India (NHAI),
Represented by its Chairman,
No.G5 and 6, Sector 10,
Dwarka, New Delhi - 110 075.
2.The Regional Officer,
National Highways Authority of India (NHAI),
Madurai Region, No.2nd and 3rd Floor,
Vijay Krishna Plaza,
No.1, Lake Area, Melur Main Road,
Mattuthavani,
Madurai District.
3.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Secretary,
Department of Transport,
Fort St.George,
Chennai - 600 009.
1/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.14168 of 2026
4.The Transport Commissioner,
Commissioner of Transport Ezhilagam,
Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
5.The District Collector cum Regional Transport Authority,
Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil
Kanyakumari District.
6.The Superintendent of Police,
Nagercoil - 629 001,
Kanyakumari District.
7.The Regional Transport Officer,
Marthandam at Mulagumoodu,
Kanyakumari District,
The Regional Transport Officer Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District.
8.The Divisional Engineer,
State Highways,
Railway Feeder Road, Kottar,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District - 629 002. ... 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 order dated 10.04.2026 passed by the fifth
respondent vide his proceeding No.231/Pu.Ma.Su/2025 within the period
that may be stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Gandhi
Senior Counsel
for Mr.K.Althaf Sheriff
For Respondents : Mr.T.Amjad Khan
Government Advocate
2/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.14168 of 2026
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed
by the fifth respondent dated 10.04.2026, whereby the operation of trucks
carrying mining materials through Kanyakumari District has been
restricted till the completion of the Kaliakkavilai to Kanyakumari National
Highway expansion work (NH-47 from 43.000 kms to 96.714 kms).
2.The petitioner is operating 14-wheel and 18-wheel trucks
with national permits. The petitioner had purchased the said trucks under
hypothecation agreements by availing loans. The petitioner has been
transporting construction materials such as cement, steel, rough stones,
jelly stones, sand, M-sand, bricks, and chamber materials in and around
Kanyakumari District and also to the State of Kerala with valid transit
permits.
3.While so, the fourth respondent passed an order dated
20.07.2023 restricting the movement of mineral-laden heavy vehicles
exceeding 10 wheels on all roads in Kanyakumari District from the
neighboring Districts of Tenkasi, Tirunelveli and Thoothukudi. The said
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
order was challenged by the Kanyakumari District Tipper Lorry Owners
Association before this Court in W.P.(MD)No.18388 of 2023. This Court,
by order dated 28.07.2023, directed the petitioner to submit a
representation before the authorities expressing their difficulties regarding
the restriction based solely on the number of wheels, upon which the
authorities were directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders
within a period of two weeks.
4.Pursuant to the said representation, the fifth respondent, by
order dated 31.08.2023, rejected the request. The same was challenged
before this Court in W.P.(MD)No.29464 of 2023 and connected batch
cases, in which an interim stay was granted on 20.12.2023. However, the
main writ petitions are still pending adjudication. Once again, by the
impugned order dated 10.04.2026, the fifth respondent imposed
restrictions on the operation of trucks carrying mining materials through
Kanyakumari District.
5.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner
submitted that the fifth respondent has no jurisdiction to impose such a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
blanket restriction without following the procedures contemplated under
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules,
1989. According to the learned Senior Counsel, such restriction is contrary
to law. Chapter VIII of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Central Act 59 of
1988) deals with the “Control of Traffic.” As per Section 112 of the Act,
only the State Government or an authority authorized by the State
Government may impose speed limits. Therefore, the impugned restriction
amounts to a clear violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
6.In support of his contention, the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble
Division Bench of the Patna High Court in Bihar Truck Owners
Association vs. State of Bihar and Others, reported in (2022) 3 BLJ 240
(PHC).
7.The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of
the respondents, on instructions, submitted that though this Court granted
an interim order in the earlier proceedings, the writ petitions have not yet
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
been finally disposed of. Further, an accident occurred on 09.04.2026.
Therefore, the fifth respondent conducted a meeting, obtained reports from
the various concerned authorities, and thereafter passed orders restricting
the operation of trucks carrying minor minerals. It is further submitted that
the movement of such vehicles causes considerable inconvenience and
disturbance to other commuters. Therefore, in order to prevent accidents
and avoid inconvenience to other road users, the fifth respondent passed
the impugned order.
8.Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner
and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents and
perused the materials available on record.
9.The fifth respondent passed the order dated 10.04.2026
restricting the operation of trucks carrying minor minerals through
Kanyakumari District till the completion of Kaliakkavilai to Kanyakumari
National Highway expansion work (NH-47 from 43.000 kms to 96.714
kms).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10.The only point for consideration in this writ petition is
whether the fifth respondent has the jurisdiction to pass such an order
imposing a complete ban.
11.The State Government traces the source of such power
under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Section 115 of the Act speaks about
the power to restrict the use of vehicles. Significantly, Section 113 of the
Act enables the State Government to prescribe conditions for the issuance
of permits for transport vehicles by the State or Regional Transport
Authorities. It may also prohibit the use of such vehicles in any area or
route. However, insofar as the provisions of Chapter VIII of the Act are
concerned, they do not in any way deal with the prohibition, restriction, or
regulation of any specified “goods” transported through a motor vehicle. In
fact, Chapter VIII deals with the control of traffic and also enables the
State Government to frame rules, as contemplated under Section 138 of the
Act, in the interest of road safety and regulation of traffic activities.
12.The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in State of Himachal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Pradesh and Another v. Umed Ram Sharma and Others, reported in
(1986) 2 SCC 68, held that Article 21, read conjointly with Article 19(1)
(d), guarantees the right to move freely throughout the territory of India
and, therefore, access to roads is integral to the right to life itself. Denial of
that right would amount to denial of life as understood in its richness and
fullness under the ambit of the Constitution.
13.Therefore, the total restriction imposed by the fifth
respondent affects not only the State Highways but also the National
Highways, which the State does not have the power to regulate. Further,
the order impugned in this writ petition is also in contravention of Section
35 of the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002
(hereinafter referred to as the “Traffic Act”). The object of the Traffic Act
is to empower the Central Government to prevent or remove
encroachments on lands forming part of National Highways, restrict access
to them from adjacent lands, and regulate the movement of any category of
vehicles or animals on National Highways. The Act specifically deals with
the power to restrict the use of vehicles and empowers the Highway
Administration to impose prohibitions or restrictions on the use of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
National Highways.
14.A reading of the objects and reasons of the said Act, as well
as the provisions contained therein, makes it clear that the power to restrict
the movement of vehicles on National Highways rests solely with the
Central Government. Therefore, the impugned order in the present writ
petition encroaches upon powers vested with another authority.
15.It is relevant to extract the provisions under Section 35 of
the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002, which
read as follows:
“35.Power to restrict the use of vehicles.—If the
Highway Administration is satisfied that it is necessary in the
interest of public safety or convenience, or because of the
nature of any road or bridge so to do, it may, by notification
in the Official Gazette, prohibit or restrict, subject to such
exceptions or conditions as may be specified in the
notification, the use of any Highway or part thereof by a class
or classes of traffic either generally or on specified occasion
or time as specified in the notification and when such
prohibition or restriction is imposed, the Highway
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Administration shall cause such traffic signs to be placed or
erected at suitable places for the convenience of the traffic as
may be prescribed:
Provided that where any prohibition or restriction
under this section is to be remained for a period of one month
or less, such prohibition or restriction may be imposed
without issuing notification in the Official Gazette:
Provided further that the prohibition or restriction
imposed under the first proviso shall be published widely for
the knowledge of the users by other possible means.”
16.Thus, the State, while exercising powers limited by its
territorial jurisdiction, cannot interfere with matters falling under the
Entries in the Union List. Even when acting in the interest of public safety
and convenience, the State Government lacks the legislative competence to
impose restrictions on movement along National Highways.
17.Further, the issue relating to the restriction on the movement
of minerals from one State to another was considered by the Division
Bench of this Court in W.P.(MD) Nos.5081 of 2019 etc., batch, by order
dated 11.02.2021, wherein it was held that though the power to regulate is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
rather wide, it would not extend to the exercise of power by the State after
the mineral has been extracted. Therefore, the State Government cannot
prohibit or restrict a licensee from transporting minerals outside the State.
However, such regulation can be imposed at the time of granting licence by
keeping in mind the actual quantity permitted to be extracted.
18.Therefore, once the quantity is restricted, the question of
regulating transportation would not arise. Moreover, such regulation would
also have an economic impact, including increased manufacturing costs,
which would itself dissuade the transportation of minerals to other States.
19.Therefore, merely because trucks may cause accidents, the
fifth respondent cannot impose restrictions on trucks transporting minerals
through a particular road. There are several other ways to control and
prevent accidents. Further, if any vehicle is found carrying overload, it
would amount to a violation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the
concerned authorities are empowered to take appropriate action against
overloading, overspeeding, and dangerous driving under the relevant
provisions of the Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
20.It is relevant to extract the provisions under Section 115 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which read as follows:
“115.Power to restrict the use of vehicles.-The
State Government or any authority authorised in this behalf
by the State Government, if satisfied that it is necessary in
the interest of public safety or convenience, or because of the
nature of any road or bridge, may by notification in the
Official Gazette, prohibit or restrict, subject to such 2 (1986)
2 SCC 68 exceptions and conditions as may be specified in
the notification, the driving of motor vehicles or of any
specified class or description of motor vehicles or the use of
trailers either generally in a specified area or on a specified
road and when any such prohibition or restriction is
imposed, shall cause appropriate traffic signs to be placed
or erected under section 116 at suitable places:
Provided that where any prohibition or restriction
under this section is to remain in force for not more than one
month, notification thereof in the Official Gazette shall not
be necessary, but such local publicity as the circumstances
may permit, shall be given of such prohibition or
restriction."
21.Section 115 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 empowers the
Collector to prohibit or restrict the entry of motor vehicles on any road or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
roads in the interest of public safety and convenience. Accordingly, the
State Government or any authority authorized in this behalf, upon being
satisfied that it is necessary in the interest of public safety or convenience,
or having regard to the nature of any road or bridge, may, by notification in
the Official Gazette, prohibit or restrict the use of such roads by any class
or description of motor vehicles, subject to such exceptions and conditions
as may be specified in the notification.
22.The proviso to Section 115 of the Act further provides that
where such prohibition or restriction is to remain in force for a period not
exceeding one month, publication of a notification in the Official Gazette
shall not be necessary.
23.Thus, for any prohibition or restriction on the use of a road
or bridge extending beyond one month, issuance of a notification in the
Official Gazette is a statutory requirement. Such prohibition or restriction
can be imposed only when it is considered necessary in the interest of
public safety or convenience, or having regard to the nature of the road or
bridge, and only with respect to any specified class or description of motor
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
vehicles.
24.Therefore, publication of a notification in the Official
Gazette is a sine qua non and a mandatory requirement for imposing a
valid restriction or prohibition on the use of motor vehicles under Section
115 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, where such restriction or prohibition
exceeds a period of one month.
25.Therefore, the fifth respondent has no jurisdiction to impose
a sweeping prohibition on the use of trucks carrying mining materials
through Kanyakumari District till the completion of Kaliakkavilai to
Kanyakumari National Highway expansion work (NH-47 from 43.000 kms
to 96.714 kms). Such restriction amounts to a clear violation of the
petitioner’s rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of
India.
26.In view of the above, the impugned order challenged in this
writ petition cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
27.Accordingly, the impugned order dated 10.04.2026 passed
by the fifth respondent is quashed, and the writ petition stands allowed. No
costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
13.05.2026
NCC : Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
ps
To
1.The National Highways Authority of India (NHAI),
Represented by its Chairman,
No.G5 and 6, Sector 10,
Dwarka, New Delhi - 110 075.
2.The Regional Officer,
National Highways Authority of India (NHAI),
Madurai Region, No.2nd and 3rd Floor,
Vijay Krishna Plaza,
No.1, Lake Area, Melur Main Road,
Mattuthavani,
Madurai District.
3.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Secretary,
Department of Transport,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Fort St.George,
Chennai - 600 009.
4.The Transport Commissioner,
Commissioner of Transport Ezhilagam,
Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
5.The District Collector cum Regional Transport Authority,
Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil
Kanyakumari District.
6.The Superintendent of Police,
Nagercoil - 629 001,
Kanyakumari District.
7.The Regional Transport Officer,
Marthandam at Mulagumoodu,
Kanyakumari District,
The Regional Transport Officer Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District.
8.The Divisional Engineer,
State Highways,
Railway Feeder Road, Kottar,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District - 629 002.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
ps
13.05.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
