Uncategorized

Dismissed HONOURABLE MR. SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN W.P.No.34400 of 2023 R.Thambaiyah alias Seetharaman

by Sekar Reporter · August 5, 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 03.08.2026
DELIVERED ON : 05.08.2026
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,
CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
W.P.No.34400 of 2023
R.Thambaiyah alias Seetharaman
1/2/210, Kathiripatti Near School, Karungallur Post, Mettur Taluk, Salem District, Tamil Nadu.
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Union of India
Through Secretary,
Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Transport Bhawan, 1, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110 001.
2. The Secretary General
Indian Roads Congress,
IRC Bhawan, Kama Koti Marg, Sector-6, R.K.Puram, New Delhi-110 022.
3. The Chief Secretary Government of Tamil Nadu Namakkal Kavignar Maaligai, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009, Tamil Nadu.
4. The Principal Secretary to Government
Highway And Minor Ports Department, Fort St.George, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
Respondent(s)
PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents as prayed as follows:
(a) to direct the State of Tamil Nadu, Respondent No.3 to enact ‘Road Safety Act’ to control road accidents as there is no single window legal options to get safety in roads and I pray to the Court to make Centre and States to provide road safety inspectors at every block level to address all danger circumstances in roads.
(b)to order Centre and to State of Tamil Nadu, Respondent No.3 to provide pedestrian path in all town punchayat, municipality, corporations roads and punchayats roads if people need pedestrian path.
(c) to direct respondent 2 to provide road safety documents and all safety aspects in roads regarding the PIL to the court.
(d) to direct Centre and to State of Tamil Nadu, Respondent No.3 and 4 to remove all illegal structures, footsteps, ramps to walk safe in roads and construct pedestrian paths in all main road in Town Punchayat, Town, Municipal corporations.
(e) to order Centre and to State of Tamil Nadu, Respondent No.3 to enact Road Safety Law conceiving all aspects on road safety.
(f) to order Centre and to State of Tamil Nadu, Respondent No.3 and 4 to erect automatic electronic speed governance in all roads in India.
(g) to order Centre and to State of Tamil Nadu, Respondent No.3 to make new guidelines on parking place for shops in road sides as number of vehicles are increasing day by day. I pray to remove all encroachments and illegal structures all over India and make legal provisions to complain on road offenders.
(h) to order Centre and to State of Tamil Nadu, Respondent No.3 and 4
to save two wheelers by creating separate lane in state highways and national highways first Road safety law should be made with provisions to save two wheelers.
(i) to order Centre and State of Tamilnadu, Respondent No. 3 and 4 to ban temporary and seasonal shops on the sides of state and national highways as motorists are directly affected by roadside shops, the public should be given the right to report roadside stalls to the police. (j) to ban all roadside stall and shops as the practices are legally banned by various punchayat and municipal act. People should be empowered to complaint on the parked vehicles in road causing danger or death on road users.
(k) to order to the respected governments to set up an inspection committee and examine the route license and timings of private and government buses to ensure safe operation of private and government buses.
(l) to issue appropriate directions to the government to regularize auto fares in India particularly in Tamil Nadu. The court should create appropriate provisions to file cases against auto owners who ask for excessively high charges.
(m) to order Centre and States to enact the Road Safety Act, to reduce the number of stray dogs, and to make the dog owners not to allow theirs dogs, appropriate steps should be taken to reduce them. I am obliged to show the honorable court that there are no relevant sections in the new Motor Vehicle Act 2019 to appeal to those affected by chasing owned dogs on the roads.
(n) to order Centre and to State of Tamil Nadu, Respondent No.3 to enact Road safety act to establish bus stops or bus bay as given the necessary road safety structures provided by the Indian Road Congress.
(o) to order Centre and to State of Tamil Nadu, Respondent No.3 and 4 to erect proper road signs and adequate infrastructures in all “T” and “Y” and other all signals as given by Indian Road Congress.
(p) to direct Centre and to State of Tamil Nadu, Respondent No.3 constitute a committee to overview the road safety measures in order to make Road Safety Act to curb road accidents. I request that this Act be framed under the own supervision of the Honble Court.
(q) to order Centre and to State of Tamil Nadu, Respondent No.3 to create a separate Ministry for “Road safety”.
(r) to order Centre and to State of Tamil Nadu, Respondent No.3 to create “Road Safety Force” RSF to enforce road safety law and rules.
(s) to order Centre and to State of Tamil Nadu, Respondent No.3 to establish “Road Safety Engineering University” as there is no educational institution for road safety.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.R.Thambaiyah @
Seetharaman (P-in-P)
For Respondent(s):Mr.V.Chandrasekaran
Senior Panel Counsel for R1
Mr.L.Gokulraj
Additional Government Pleader for R3 and R4
ORDER
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
This petition has been filed by the petitioner, appearing in person, entreating this court to direct the Union of India and the State of Tamil Nadu to bring in a new law called a “Road Safety Act.” Along with that main prayer, the petitioner has also asked for eighteen other directions covering everything from footpaths and parking rules to stray dogs, bus bays, auto-rickshaw fares, and the creation of a new university for road safety engineering.
2. There can be no doubt that the petitioner’s concern is genuine. Road accidents claim an enormous number of lives in this country every year, and the petitioner, through his own organisation named as Tamil Saalai Panpattu Kazhagam, appears to have spent years trying to raise awareness about this problem. However, the sole intention, by itself, is not enough to allow this petition to proceed to a hearing on merits.
3. The petitioner had earlier approached the Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of the Constitution in W.P.(C) Diary No.12649 of 2023, seeking a nationwide Road Safety Law. The Supreme Court, vide order dated 7.7.2023, while dismissing the petitioner, granted the petitioner liberty to approach the jurisdictional High Court if he wanted reliefs specific to the State of Tamil Nadu.
4. On the basis of the liberty granted by the Supreme Court, the petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition sets out, at some length, statistics on road accidents, deaths and injuries in India and in Tamil Nadu, and goes on to plead that the root causes for such occurrences are missing footpaths, encroachments on roads, absence of parking regulation, over-speeding, unregulated auto fares, stray and unleashed dogs, unauthorised hoardings and the lack of any single law that brings all of this under one roof.
5. Based on these grounds, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for the 19 reliefs stated in prayer clause of the writ petition.
All of this has been sought by the petitioner by paying a single court fee.
6. At the outset, two preliminary issues arise for our consideration: (a) Whether this Court, exercising its writ
jurisdiction, can direct the Legislature to enact a law in a particular form, as the petitioner has sought?; and (b) Whether a single writ petition, carrying a single court fee, can bundle together nineteen distinct and largely unconnected prayers, several of which do not arise from one common set of facts?
7. It is well-settled that under our constitutional scheme the making of laws is the job of the Legislature and not that of the Courts. Courts interpret and enforce laws once they exist; they examine whether an existing law or an executive action is constitutional; and in appropriate cases they can even fill a gap by laying down guidelines until Parliament or a State Legislature steps in, as the Supreme Court did, for instance, in matters like sexual harassment at the workplace, before a statute was eventually passed. What a Court cannot do is instruct the Legislature that it must pass a particular law, on a particular subject, containing particular provisions. Such direction would mean one wing of the State telling another wing how to perform its core constitutional function and our Constitution does not allow that.
8. The question as to whether a Court can direct the enactment of a law was considered by the Supreme Court in a recent decision in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India and Others . After referring to a plethora of earlier decisions, the Supreme Court held, in unequivocal terms, that a writ court has no power to command the Legislature to legislate on a subject in any specific manner. For ease of reference, paragraphs 33 to 36 of that judgment are reproduced herein below:
“33. … From the foregoing discussion, it emerges that the constitutional role of the judiciary is primarily to interpret and apply the law, and not to legislate. In appropriate cases, particularly where a legislative vacuum exists, this Court may issue directions or evolve principles while interpreting statutory provisions or enforcing fundamental rights. Such directions, however, are inherently interim in nature and are intended to operate only until the Legislature enacts an appropriate law governing the field.
34. The authority to enact binding and general norms of conduct, which necessarily involve broader political, social and moral considerations, lies exclusively within the legislative domain. Any attempt by Courts to prescribe detailed statutory schemes or to frame provisions akin to legislation would amount to judicial law-making and would impermissibly trench upon the functions assigned to the Legislature. Thus, while Courts may fill interstitial gaps in order to safeguard constitutional rights, they cannot supplant the legislative function or create enduring legal frameworks that properly fall within the province of Parliament or the State
Legislatures.
35. Very recently, this Court in Union of India v. K. Pushpavanam, (2023) 20 SCC 736, was called upon to consider the correctness of directions issued by the High Court requiring the Union Government to introduce a Bill in relation to liability in tort. This

Court expressed its disapproval of the directions so issued, observing that the High Court had transgressed the permissible limits of judicial review by effectively directing the introduction of legislation. The Court observed as follows: –
“7. As far as the law of torts and liability thereunder of the State is concerned, the law regarding the liability of the State and individuals has been gradually evolved by courts. Some aspects of it find place in statutes already in force. It is a debatable issue whether the law of torts and especially liabilities under the law of torts should be codified by a legislation. A writ court cannot direct the Government to consider introducing a particular bill before the House of Legislature within a time frame. Therefore, the first direction issued under the impugned judgment [K. Pushpavanam v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine Mad 17062] was unwarranted. …
13. The law regarding power of the writ court to issue a mandate to the legislature to legislate is well settled. No constitutional court can issue a writ of mandamus to a legislature to enact a law on a particular subject in a particular manner. The Court may, at the highest, record its opinion or recommendation on the necessity of either amending the existing law or coming out with a new law. … The only exception is where the Court finds that unless a rule-making power is exercised, the legislation cannot be effectively implemented.”
(emphasis supplied)
36. It is thus well settled that while exercising its writ jurisdiction, this Court may interpret and develop the law and may also indicate the necessity for legislative reform where the circumstances so warrant. However, the Court cannot issue a writ of mandamus directing the Legislature or the Government to enact a particular law or to introduce a Bill before the Legislature within a stipulated time frame. While the Court may draw attention to the need for legislative action, it cannot compel the Legislature to undertake the law-making function.”
[emphasis supplied]
10. The present petition, at its heart, seeks exactly a directionto the Legislature to legislate. Prayer (a) asks the State to “enact a Road Safety Act.” Prayer (e) repeats the same request in different words. Several of the other prayers, such as seeking a Road Safety Force, a separate Ministry, or a dedicated Engineering University, are, in deed, requests for new policy and administrative facilities that have to be created by executive or legislative decision and not by a judicial order.
11. The petitioner has compiled a great deal of material showing why he believes such a law is necessary, but the necessity of a law, however well demonstrated, does not give this Court the power to order its enactment. Such power rests with the Legislature alone. The petitioner’s own affidavit makes is luculent that an earlier attempt at a comprehensive Road Safety Bill in 2014 was withdrawn in the face of political and public opposition. For this reason alone, the primary relief sought in this petition, viz., a direction to enact a “Road Safety Act”, cannot be granted.
12. The second issue is procedural, but no less fundamental.The petitioner has asked for nineteen separate directions in one petition, having paid court fee for only one. This is not permitted under the applicable Rules.
13. Rule 3(3) of the Madras High Court Writ Rules, 2021 governs precisely this situation. It permits a single writ petition to contain more than one relief, or alternate reliefs, provided they all arise out of the same cause of action, and it further allows one or more ancillary or consequential reliefs to be added without extra court fee. However, the Rule is equally clear that where the reliefs are genuinely multiple and distinct, separate court fee must be paid for each such relief. The Rule also gives this Court the discretion to direct that separate writ petitions be filed for such distinct reliefs.
14. A bare perusal of the nineteen prayers in this petition, makes it ostensibly clear that they do not spring from a single cause of action. A direction to build footpaths in every town panchayat is a different cause of action, involving different facts, different authorities and different considerations. Similarly, a direction to regulate auto-rickshaw fares, or a direction to frame rules for the registration and control of pet dogs, or a direction to examine bus route licences issued decades ago, all involve its own set of responsible authorities, and would require independent examination on merits. They have simply been placed together under the umbrella of “road safety,” which is too broad a common thread to satisfy the requirement of a single cause of action under Rule 3(3) of the Rules.
15. The requirement of separate court fee and the possibility of directing separate petitions is mandated so that each distinct grievance can be examined on its own facts, with the right respondents before the Court and the right factual foundation laid, rather than being decided or dismissed as part of an omnibus petition, where nineteen different prayers are sought in a single set of pleadings. Allowing this petition to proceed as framed would also mean permitting a litigant to avoid paying the court fee that would ordinarily be due qua different reliefs sought. For this reason too, the petition, as framed, cannot be entertained.
16. For the reasons given herein above, this writ petition failsand is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
17. We make it clear that it is open to the petitioner, if he is so advised, to pursue his grievances relating to specific matters such as the absence of a footpath on an identified stretch of road, an identified unauthorised structure, or an identified instance of an authority failing to act on a complaint, by way of separate petitions by paying the requisite court fee.
(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J)
05.08.2026
Index : Yes Neutral Citation : Yes
sasi
To:
1. The Secretary, Union of India
Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Transport Bhawan, 1, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110 001.
2. The Secretary General
Indian Roads Congress,
IRC Bhawan, Kama Koti Marg, Sector-6, R.K.Puram, New Delhi-110 022.
3. The Chief Secretary Government of Tamil Nadu Namakkal Kavignar Maaligai, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009, Tamil Nadu.
4. The Principal Secretary to Government
Highway And Minor Ports Department, Fort St.George, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND G.ARUL MURUGAN,J.
(sasi)
W.P.No.34400 of 2023