HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN WP No. 2301 of 2024 AND WMP NO. 2588 OF 2024,WMP NO. 2587 OF 2024,WMP NO. 2912 OF 2024,WP NO. 2646 OF 2024,WMP NO. 2910 OF 2024,WMP NO. 2911 OF 2024,WMP NO. 2393 OF 2024,WMP NO. 2396 OF 2024,WP NO. 2380 OF 2024,WP NO. 2382 OF 2024,WMP NO. 2491 OF 2024,WMP NO. 2259 OF 2024,WMP NO. 2260 OF 2024,WMP NO. 2261 OF 2024,WMP NO. 2492 OF 2024,WMP NO. 2584 OF 2024,WMP NO. 2582 OF 2024,WMP NO. 2258 OF 2024,WMP NO. 2585 OF 2024,WMP NO. 2586 OF 2024,WP NO. 2109 OF 2024,WP NO. 2110 OF 2024,WP NO. 2205 OF 2024 1. All Omni Bus Owners Association Rep.By Its President Dr.A.Anbazhagan, F-4.Sriji Majestic Complex Omni Bus Terminal, No.6, E- Road, Chennai- 102. Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Transport Commissioner

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON: 20.01.2026
PRONOUNCED ON: 05.06.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
WP No. 2301 of 2024
AND
WMP NO. 2588 OF 2024,WMP NO. 2587 OF 2024,WMP NO. 2912 OF
2024,WP NO. 2646 OF 2024,WMP NO. 2910 OF 2024,WMP NO. 2911 OF
2024,WMP NO. 2393 OF 2024,WMP NO. 2396 OF 2024,WP NO. 2380 OF
2024,WP NO. 2382 OF 2024,WMP NO. 2491 OF 2024,WMP NO. 2259 OF 2024,WMP NO. 2260 OF 2024,WMP NO. 2261 OF 2024,WMP NO. 2492 OF 2024,WMP NO. 2584 OF 2024,WMP NO. 2582 OF 2024,WMP NO.
2258 OF 2024,WMP NO. 2585 OF 2024,WMP NO. 2586 OF 2024,WP NO.
2109 OF 2024,WP NO. 2110 OF 2024,WP NO. 2205 OF 2024
1. All Omni Bus Owners Association
Rep.By Its President Dr.A.Anbazhagan, F-4.Sriji Majestic Complex Omni Bus
Terminal, No.6, E- Road, Chennai- 102.
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Transport Commissioner
Cum State Transport Authority, Chepauk, Chennai-005.
2.The Chairman And Managing Director Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Egmore, Chennai-008.
3.State Express Transport
Corporation (tamil Nadu) Ltd., Rep. By Its
Managing Director, Thiruvalluvar Illam, No.2
Pallavan Salai, Chennai 600 002.(r3-impleaded As
Per Order Dated 07.02.2024 In Wmp.3155/2024 In
Wp.2301/2024 By Rnmj)
Respondent(s)
WMP No. 2588 of 2024 1. M/s. Parveen Travels Pvt. Ltd.,
Rep. By Its Managing Director, Mr. A.Afsal, Ab
Towers, 148 Perambur Barracks Road,
Purasawalkam, Chennai 07
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State Of Tamilnadu
Rep. By Its Secretary, Home Transport Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai 9
2.The Transport Commissioner/
State Transport Authority, Ezhilagam, Chepauk Chennai 05
3.Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority
Thalamuthu Natarajan Building, No.1, Gandhi
Irwin Road, Egmore Chennai 08
4.The Regional Transport Authority Chengalpet
5.State Express Transport
Corporation (tamil Nadu) Ltd., Rep. By Its
Managing Director, Thiruvalluvar Illam, No.2
Pallavan Salai, Chennai 600 002.(r5-impleaded As
Per Order Dated 07.02.2024 In Wmp.3160/2024 In
Wp.2382/2024 By Rnmj)
Respondent(s) WMP No. 2587 of 2024 1. M/s. Parveen Travels Pvt. Ltd.,
Rep. By Its Managing Director, Mr. A.Afsal, Ab
Towers, 148 Perambur Barracks Road,
Purasawalkam, Chennai 07
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State Of Tamilnadu
Rep. By Its Secretary, Home Transport Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai 9
2.The Transport Commissioner/
State Transport Authority, Ezhilagam, Chepauk Chennai 05
3.Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority
Thalamuthu Natarajan Building, No.1, Gandhi
Irwin Road, Egmore Chennai 08
4.The Regional Transport Authority Chengalpet
5.State Express Transport
Corporation (tamil Nadu) Ltd., Rep. By Its
Managing Director, Thiruvalluvar Illam, No.2
Pallavan Salai, Chennai 600 002.(r5-impleaded As
Per Order Dated 07.02.2024 In Wmp.3160/2024 In
Wp.2382/2024 By Rnmj)
Respondent(s) WMP No. 2912 of 2024 1. Tamil Nadu Omni Bus Owners Association
Rep By Its President, Mr.A.Afzal New No.5, East Park Street, Shenoy Nagar (opp.B3 Metro Rail Exit) Chennai- 030.
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State Of Tamil Nadu
Rep By Its Secretary Home, Transport Department Fort St. George, Chennai- 009.
2.The Transport Commissioner /
State Transport Authority Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai-05.
3.Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority Thalamuthu Natarajan Building, No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai-08.
4.The Regional Transport Authority Chengalpet.
5.State Express Transport
Corporation(tamil Nadu) Ltd., Rep. By Its Managing
Director, Thiruvalluvar Illam, No. 2, Pallavan
Salai, Chennai – 600 002.(r5-impleaded As Per
Order Dated 09.02.2024 In Wmp.3452/2024 In
Wp.2646/2024 By Rnmj)
WP No. 2646 of 2024 1. Tamil Nadu Omni Bus Owners Association
Rep By Its President, Mr.A.Afzal New No.5, East Park Street, Shenoy Nagar (opp.B3 Metro Rail Exit) Chennai- 030.
Vs
1. The State Of Tamil Nadu
Rep By Its Secretary Home, Transport Department Fort St. George, Chennai- 009.
2.The Transport Commissioner /
State Transport Authority Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai-05.
3.Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority Thalamuthu Natarajan Building, No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai-08.
4.The Regional Transport Authority Chengalpet.
5.State Express Transport
Corporation(tamil Nadu) Ltd., Rep. By Its Managing
Director, Thiruvalluvar Illam, No. 2, Pallavan
Salai, Chennai – 600 002.(r5-impleaded As Per
Order Dated 09.02.2024 In Wmp.3452/2024 In
Wp.2646/2024 By Rnmj) Respondent(s)
Petitioner(s)
Respondent(s) WMP No. 2910 of 2024
1. Tamil Nadu Omni Bus Owners Association
Rep By Its President, Mr.A.Afzal New No.5, East Park Street, Shenoy Nagar (opp.B3 Metro Rail Exit) Chennai- 030.
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State Of Tamil Nadu
Rep By Its Secretary Home, Transport Department Fort St. George, Chennai- 009.
2.The Transport Commissioner /
State Transport Authority Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai-05.
3.Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority Thalamuthu Natarajan Building, No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai-08.
4.The Regional Transport Authority Chengalpet.
5.State Express Transport
Corporation(tamil Nadu) Ltd., Rep. By Its Managing
Director, Thiruvalluvar Illam, No. 2, Pallavan
Salai, Chennai – 600 002.(r5-impleaded As Per
Order Dated 09.02.2024 In Wmp.3452/2024 In
Wp.2646/2024 By Rnmj)
Respondent(s) WMP No. 2911 of 2024 1. Tamil Nadu Omni Bus Owners Association
Rep By Its President, Mr.A.Afzal New No.5, East Park Street, Shenoy Nagar (opp.B3 Metro Rail Exit) Chennai- 030.
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State Of Tamil Nadu
Rep By Its Secretary Home, Transport Department Fort St. George, Chennai- 009.
2.The Transport Commissioner /
State Transport Authority Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai-05.
3.Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority Thalamuthu Natarajan Building, No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai-08.
4.The Regional Transport Authority Chengalpet.
5.State Express Transport
Corporation(tamil Nadu) Ltd., Rep. By Its Managing
Director, Thiruvalluvar Illam, No. 2, Pallavan
Salai, Chennai – 600 002.(r5-impleaded As Per
Order Dated 09.02.2024 In Wmp.3452/2024 In
Wp.2646/2024 By Rnmj)
Respondent(s) WMP No. 2393 of 2024 1. S.Ramachandran Chettiya
S/o.Chettiya Gounder, No.5/185,Sundaram Colony, Omalur Main Road, Five Road, Meyyanur, Salem- 636 004.
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State Of Tamil Nadu
Rep By Its Secretary, Home (transport) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai- 009.
2.The Transport Commissioner Ehilagam, Chepauk, Chennai- 005.
3.State Express Transport
Corporation (tamil Nadu) Ltd., Rep. By Its
Managing Director, Thiruvalluvar Illam, No.2
Pallavan Salai, Chennai 600 002.(r3-impleaded As
Per Order Dated 07.02.2024 In Wmp.3153/2024 In
Wp.2205/2024 By Rnmj)
Respondent(s)
WMP No. 2396 of 2024 1. S.Ramachandran Chettiya
S/o.Chettiya Gounder, No.5/185,Sundaram Colony, Omalur Main Road, Five Road, Meyyanur, Salem- 636 004.
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State Of Tamil Nadu
Rep By Its Secretary, Home (transport) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai- 009.
2.The Transport Commissioner Ehilagam, Chepauk, Chennai- 005.
3.State Express Transport
Corporation (tamil Nadu) Ltd., Rep. By Its
Managing Director, Thiruvalluvar Illam, No.2
Pallavan Salai, Chennai 600 002.(r3-impleaded As
Per Order Dated 07.02.2024 In Wmp.3153/2024 In
Wp.2205/2024 By Rnmj)
Respondent(s) WP No. 2380 of 2024 1. D.Maran
S/o. Dayalan, No. 34 Bye Pass Road, Poonamallee,
Chennai 57
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State Of Tamilnadu
Rep. By Its Secretary, Home Transport Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai 9
2.The Transport Commissioner/
State Transport Authority, Ezhilagam, Chepauk Chennai 05
3.Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority
Thalamuthu Natarajan Building, No.1, Gandhi
Irwin Road, Egmore Chennai 08
4.The Regional Transport Authority Chengalpet
5.State Express Transport
Corporation (tamil Nadu) Ltd., Rep. By Its
Managing Director, Thiruvalluvar Illam, No.2
Pallavan Salai, Chennai 600 002.(r5-impleaded As
Per Order Dated 07.02.2024 In Wmp.3157/2024 In
Wp.2380/2024 By Rnmj)
Respondent(s) WP No. 2382 of 2024 1. M/s. Parveen Travels Pvt. Ltd.,
Rep. By Its Managing Director, Mr. A.Afsal, Ab
Towers, 148 Perambur Barracks Road,
Purasawalkam, Chennai 07 Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State Of Tamilnadu
Rep. By Its Secretary, Home Transport Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 9
2.The Transport Commissioner/
State Transport Authority, Ezhilagam, Chepauk Chennai 05
3.Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority
Thalamuthu Natarajan Building, No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore Chennai 08
4.The Regional Transport Authority Chengalpet
5.State Express Transport
Corporation (tamil Nadu) Ltd., Rep. By Its Managing
Director, Thiruvalluvar Illam, No.2 Pallavan Salai, Chennai
600 002.(r5-impleaded As Per Order Dated 07.02.2024 In
Wmp.3160/2024 In Wp.2382/2024 By Rnmj)
Respondent(s) WMP No. 2491 of 2024
1. All Omni Bus Owners Association
Rep.By Its President Dr.A.Anbazhagan,
F-4.Sriji Majestic Complex Omni Bus
Terminal, No.6, E- Road, Chennai- 102.
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Transport Commissioner
Cum State Transport Authority, Chepauk, Chennai-005.
2.The Chairman And Managing Director
Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Egmore, Chennai-008.
3.State Express Transport
Corporation (tamil Nadu) Ltd., Rep. By Its Managing
Director, Thiruvalluvar Illam, No.2 Pallavan Salai, Chennai
600 002.(r3-impleaded As Per Order Dated 07.02.2024 In
Wmp.3155/2024 In Wp.2301/2024 By Rnmj)
Respondent(s) WMP No. 2259 of 2024 1. M/s.Ybm Travels Private Limited
Rep. By Its Director Tajudeen, S/o.Jailabueen, 64,
4th Layout, Teachers Colony, Lakshmipuram,
Kolathur, Chennai-600 099
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Transport Commissioner Cum State Transport
Authority,
Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.
2.The Chairman And Managing Director Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.
3.State Express Transport
Corporation (tamil Nadu) Ltd., Rep. By Its
Managing Director, Thiruvalluvar Illam, No.2
Pallavan Salai, Chennai 600 002.(r3-impleaded As
Per Order Dated 07.02.2024 In Wmp.3147/2024 In
Wp.2109/2024 By Rnmj)

Respondent(s) WMP No. 2260 of 2024
1. M/s.Vetri Travels,
Rep. By Its Proprietor K.Suresh Gandhi,
S/o.Karuppiah, 1163, Ponnamalli Road, Evr Periyar Salai, Koyambedu, Chennai-600 107.
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Transport Commissioner Cum State Transport
Authority,
Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.
2.The Chairman And Managing Director Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.
3.State Express Transport
Corporation (tamil Nadu) Ltd., Rep. By Its Managing
Director, Thiruvalluvar Illam, No.2 Pallavan Salai,
Chennai 600 002.(r3-impleaded As Per Order Dated
07.02.2024 In Wmp.3150/2024 In Wp.2110/2024 By
Rnmj)
Respondent(s) WMP No. 2261 of 2024
1. M/s.Vetri Travels,
Rep. By Its Proprietor K.Suresh Gandhi,
S/o.Karuppiah, 1163, Ponnamalli Road, Evr Periyar Salai, Koyambedu, Chennai-600 107.
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Transport Commissioner Cum State Transport
Authority,
Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.
2.The Chairman And Managing Director Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.
3.State Express Transport
Corporation (tamil Nadu) Ltd., Rep. By Its Managing
Director, Thiruvalluvar Illam, No.2 Pallavan Salai,
Chennai 600 002.(r3-impleaded As Per Order Dated
07.02.2024 In Wmp.3150/2024 In Wp.2110/2024 By
Rnmj)
Respondent(s) WMP No. 2492 of 2024 1. All Omni Bus Owners Association
Rep.By Its President Dr.A.Anbazhagan, F-4.Sriji Majestic Complex Omni Bus Terminal, No.6, E- Road, Chennai- 102.
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Transport Commissioner
Cum State Transport Authority, Chepauk, Chennai-005.
2.The Chairman And Managing Director Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Egmore, Chennai-008.
3.State Express Transport
Corporation (tamil Nadu) Ltd., Rep. By Its
Managing Director, Thiruvalluvar Illam, No.2
Pallavan Salai, Chennai 600 002.(r3-impleaded As
Per Order Dated 07.02.2024 In Wmp.3155/2024 In
Wp.2301/2024 By Rnmj)
Respondent(s)
WMP No. 2584 of 2024
1. D.Maran
S/o. Dayalan, No. 34 Bye Pass Road,
Poonamallee, Chennai 57
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State Of Tamilnadu
Rep. By Its Secretary, Home Transport
Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 9
2.The Transport Commissioner/
State Transport Authority, Ezhilagam, Chepauk Chennai 05
3.Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority
Thalamuthu Natarajan Building, No.1, Gandhi
Irwin Road, Egmore Chennai 08
4.The Regional Transport Authority Chengalpet
5.State Express Transport
Corporation (tamil Nadu) Ltd., Rep. By Its
Managing Director, Thiruvalluvar Illam, No.2
Pallavan Salai, Chennai 600 002.(r5-impleaded
As Per Order Dated 07.02.2024 In
Wmp.3157/2024 In Wp.2380/2024 By Rnmj)
Respondent(s)
WMP No. 2582 of 2024
1. D.Maran
S/o. Dayalan, No. 34 Bye Pass Road,
Poonamallee, Chennai 57
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State Of Tamilnadu
Rep. By Its Secretary, Home Transport
Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 9
2.The Transport Commissioner/
State Transport Authority, Ezhilagam, Chepauk Chennai 05
3.Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority
Thalamuthu Natarajan Building, No.1, Gandhi
Irwin Road, Egmore Chennai 08
4.The Regional Transport Authority Chengalpet
5.State Express Transport
Corporation (tamil Nadu) Ltd., Rep. By Its
Managing Director, Thiruvalluvar Illam, No.2
Pallavan Salai, Chennai 600 002.(r5-impleaded
As Per Order Dated 07.02.2024 In
Wmp.3157/2024 In Wp.2380/2024 By Rnmj)
Respondent(s)
WMP No. 2258 of 2024 1. M/s.Ybm Travels Private Limited
Rep. By Its Director Tajudeen, S/o.Jailabueen,
64, 4th Layout, Teachers Colony,
Lakshmipuram, Kolathur, Chennai-600 099
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Transport Commissioner Cum State Transport Authority, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.
2.The Chairman And Managing Director Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.
3.State Express Transport
Corporation (tamil Nadu) Ltd., Rep. By Its
Managing Director, Thiruvalluvar Illam, No.2
Pallavan Salai, Chennai 600 002.(r3-impleaded
As Per Order Dated 07.02.2024 In
Wmp.3147/2024 In Wp.2109/2024 By Rnmj)
Respondent(s)
WMP No. 2585 of 2024
1. D.Maran
S/o. Dayalan, No. 34 Bye Pass Road,
Poonamallee, Chennai 57
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State Of Tamilnadu
Rep. By Its Secretary, Home Transport
Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 9
2.The Transport Commissioner/
State Transport Authority, Ezhilagam, Chepauk Chennai 05
3.Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority
Thalamuthu Natarajan Building, No.1, Gandhi
Irwin Road, Egmore Chennai 08
4.The Regional Transport Authority Chengalpet
5.State Express Transport
Corporation (tamil Nadu) Ltd., Rep. By Its
Managing Director, Thiruvalluvar Illam, No.2
Pallavan Salai, Chennai 600 002.(r5-impleaded
As Per Order Dated 07.02.2024 In
Wmp.3157/2024 In Wp.2380/2024 By Rnmj)
Respondent(s)
WMP No. 2586 of 2024 1. M/s. Parveen Travels Pvt. Ltd.,
Rep. By Its Managing Director, Mr. A.Afsal, Ab
Towers, 148 Perambur Barracks Road,
Purasawalkam, Chennai 07
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State Of Tamilnadu
Rep. By Its Secretary, Home Transport
Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 9
2.The Transport Commissioner/
State Transport Authority, Ezhilagam, Chepauk Chennai 05
3.Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority
Thalamuthu Natarajan Building, No.1, Gandhi
Irwin Road, Egmore Chennai 08
4.The Regional Transport Authority
Chengalpet
5.State Express Transport
Corporation (tamil Nadu) Ltd., Rep. By Its
Managing Director, Thiruvalluvar Illam, No.2
Pallavan Salai, Chennai 600 002.(r5-impleaded
As Per Order Dated 07.02.2024 In
Wmp.3160/2024 In Wp.2382/2024 By Rnmj)
Respondent(s)
WP No. 2109 of 2024 1. M/s.Ybm Travels Private Limited
Rep. By Its Director Tajudeen, S/o.Jailabueen,
64, 4th Layout, Teachers Colony,
Lakshmipuram, Kolathur, Chennai-600 099
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Transport Commissioner Cum State Transport Authority, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.
2.The Chairman And Managing Director Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.
3.State Express Transport
Corporation (tamil Nadu) Ltd., Rep. By Its
Managing Director, Thiruvalluvar Illam, No.2
Pallavan Salai, Chennai 600 002.(r3-impleaded
As Per Order Dated 07.02.2024 In
Wmp.3147/2024 In Wp.2109/2024 By Rnmj)
Respondent(s)
WP No. 2110 of 2024
1. M/s.Vetri Travels,
Rep. By Its Proprietor K.Suresh Gandhi, S/o.Karuppiah, 1163, Ponnamalli Road, Evr
Periyar Salai, Koyambedu, Chennai-600 107.
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Transport Commissioner Cum State
Transport Authority,
Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.
2.The Chairman And Managing Director Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.
3.State Express Transport
Corporation (tamil Nadu) Ltd., Rep. By Its
Managing Director, Thiruvalluvar Illam, No.2
Pallavan Salai, Chennai 600 002.(r3-impleaded
As Per Order Dated 07.02.2024 In
Wmp.3150/2024 In Wp.2110/2024 By Rnmj)
Respondent(s)
WP No. 2205 of 2024
1. S.Ramachandran Chettiya
S/o.Chettiya Gounder, No.5/185,Sundaram Colony, Omalur Main Road, Five Road, Meyyanur, Salem- 636 004.
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State Of Tamil Nadu
Rep By Its Secretary, Home (transport) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai- 009.
2.The Transport Commissioner Ehilagam, Chepauk, Chennai- 005.
3.State Express Transport
Corporation (tamil Nadu) Ltd., Rep. By Its
Managing Director, Thiruvalluvar Illam, No.2
Pallavan Salai, Chennai 600 002.(r3-impleaded
As Per Order Dated 07.02.2024 In
Wmp.3153/2024 In Wp.2205/2024 By Rnmj)
Respondent(s)
WP No. 2301 of 2024
PRAYER
Calling for the records connected with the proceedings of the Transport Commissioner, Chepauk in Procs. No/ 43915 /A1/ 2023 dated 22-1- 2024 passed by the 1st respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to allow all south bound Omnibuses also to pick up and drop passengers from Koyambedu Omni Bus Stand as earlier.
WP No. 2646 of 2024
PRAYER
Call for the records of the 2nd Respondent in Procs. No.43915/ A1/ 2023 dated
22.01.2024 ordering that all south bound Omni Buses Shall operate only from Kilambakkam KCBT from the night of 24.01.2024 and further that no south bound Omni Buses will be permitted to travel into the city with passengers beyond KCBT Terminal and to quash the same and pass.
WP No. 2380 of 2024
PRAYER
calling for the records of the 2nd respondent in Procs. No. 43915/ A1/ 2023 dated 22.01.2024 ordering that all South bound Omni Buses shall operate only from Kilambakkam KCBT from the night of 24.01.2024 and further that no South bound Omni Buses will be permitted to travel in to the city with passengers beyond KCBT Terminal and to quash the same and pass
WP No. 2382 of 2024
PRAYER
calling for the records of the 2nd respondent in Procs. No. 43915/ A1/ 2023 dated 22.01.2024 ordering that all South bound Omni Buses shall operate only from Kilambakkam KCBT from the night of 24.01.2024 and further that no South bound Omni Buses will be permitted to travel in to the city with passengers beyond KCBT Terminal and to quash the same and pass
WP No. 2109 of 2024
PRAYER
Calling for the records connected with the proceedings of the Transport Commissioner, Chepauk in Procs. No.43915/ A1/2023 dated 22.01.2024 passed by the 1st respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to allow all south bound omnibuses also to pick up and drop passengers from Koyambedu Omni Bus Stand as earlier
WP No. 2110 of 2024
PRAYER
Calling for the records connected with the proceedings of the Transport Commissioner, Chepauk in Procs. No.43915/ A1/2023 dated 22.01.2024 passed by the 1st respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to allow all south bound omnibuses also to pick up and drop passengers from Koyambedu Omni Bus Stand as earlier
WP No. 2205 of 2024
PRAYER
Calling for the records of the Second respondent made in Proceedings No. 43915 /A1/ 2023 dated 22.1.2024 and quash the same and direct the respondents to permit the petitioners Contract Carriages to enter into the Chennai District and also to make use of Koyembedu Bus stand for Picking up, dropping and halting the petitioners Vehicles thereat and thus render Justice.
For Petitioner (s): Mr.Vijay Narayan, Senior Counsel for Mr.Sarath Kumar
Mrs.Radha Gopalan for Ms.Bhargavi Gopalan
Mr.Palani
For R1: Mr.P.S.Raman
Advocate General for Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal Additional Government Pleader
For R2: Mr.Sivakumar
for M/s. Siva And Sesu Associates
C O M M O N O R D E R
These batch of writ petitions challenge the order passed by the State Transport Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘STA’), Chepauk, Chennai, on
22.01.2024. Hence, they were clubbed together and heard by this Court.
2.These writ petitions have been filed by both the Association of Omni Bus Operators as well as individual operators, who have been granted permits to run omni buses.
The following facts are not in dispute:
3.There exist a stage carriage and a contract carriage bus terminus in
Koyambedu. This is situated within the city limits of Chennai. The State of
Tamil Nadu took a decision to develop a mofussil bus terminus near Vandalur. On 30.04.2013, the then Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, made a statement on the floor of the Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu, stating that a bus terminus would come on the outskirts of Chennai near Vandalur.
4.Pursuant to this statement, the State of Tamil Nadu issued G.O.
(Ms).No.184, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 10.07.2013. Through this Government Order, administrative sanction was granted for the construction of a bus terminus at Kilambakkam in Chengalpattu District. Pursuant to this order, the government acquired lands for construction of the bus terminus. Thereafter, it issued G.O.(Ms).No.132, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 19.07.2017. Through this Government Order, two committees were created, one was the Technical Committee and other was the Steering Committee. The Steering Committee decided to construct a unified bus terminus to accommodate both the State Express Transport Corporation (SETC) buses / TNSTC buses and private contract carriage buses. Subsequently, this proposal was taken forward and another Government Order was passed in
G.O.(Ms).No.168, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 04.12.2018. This Government Order accorded revised administrative sanction for the project.
5.The construction of the project was taken up in right earnest. COVID-19 pandemic intervened and therefore, the activities came to a grinding halt. Post pandemic, construction re-commenced and major activities were completed. Thereafter, on 27.12.2022, the Steering Committee created under G.O.(Ms).No.132, met again and decided to affirm its stand for a unified bus stand.
6. Private contract carriage owners and the office bearers of the Tamil Nadu Omni Bus Owners’ Association were called for a meeting on 25.03.2023. In the meeting, certain demands were raised by the office bearers. Subsequent to the meeting, the issues raised by the All India Bus Owners Association were also considered and complied with.
7.The Regional Transport Officer (RTO), Chengalpet District, the 4th respondent herein, granted approval for the bus stand as a “Special Class” bus stand for a period of three years from 28.06.2023. On the request made by the 3rd respondent, the 4th respondent, by his order dated 21.12.2023, granted a separate approval for a contract carriage bus stand for the use of omni bus operators at Kilambakkam for a period of three years from 21.12.2023.The order was also gazetted in the Chengalpattu District Gazette on 26.12.2023. With the proceedings having been issued, the terminus was declared open on 30.12.2023 and the south bound SETC buses started their operations on the same day.
8.The cause of action for the present writ petitions arose when the STA invoked Rule 370 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, ordering as follows:-
(i)All south bound omni buses shall operate only from Kilambakkam KCBT from the night of 24.01.2024.
(ii)No south bound omni bus will be permitted to travel into the city with passengers beyond KCBT terminus. If any violation is noticed, severe action will be taken against operator as per provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules.
9.He further directed that the existing Koyambedu Omni Bus Terminal shall entertain only those omni buses bound for western and northern districts of Tamil Nadu and no south bound omni bus shall be permitted to enter Koyambedu bus stand even without passengers. The impugned order dated
22.01.2024 was directed to come into effect from 07.00 PM of 24.01.2024.
10.Challenging the same, the present writ petitions have been filed.
11.This Court entertained the writ petitions. After hearing the petitioners and the Hon’ble Advocate General, the following proposal made on behalf of the petitioners was directed to continue pending the writ petitions. It is as follows:-
(i)Proposal No.1:-
Most of the omni bus operators who are all running travel businesses are having their own place (Garage) or rented place for operating, parking and maintaining of their vehicles. The Government can consider permitting / allowing those operators to operate from their own place and to reach Kilambakkam bus stand for operating to south bound districts. It is important to point out that even prior to the issuance of the present impugned proceedings, when the omni buses were being operated from Koyambedu bus stand, this facility was available.
12.This Court, by its order dated 01.02.2024, also impleaded representatives of various bus operators’ association, in order to meet and discuss the issues with the state respondents and to arrive at a conclusion.
13.Despite the meetings, the issue regarding pickup and drop points enroute Kilambakkam bus stand continued. Hence, this Court, by an order dated
09.02.2024, permitted the pickup and drop points at (i) Surapattu Toll Plaza and
(ii) Porur Toll Plaza.
It was made clear that no south bound mofussil bus can ply crossing Kilambakkam, without going to the Kilambakkam bus stand for picking up and dropping the passengers there.
14.Parties were directed to complete the pleadings. Till the final hearing of the writ petitions, interim arrangement already granted was directed to be continued.
15.With the pleadings having been completed, I took up the matter for final disposal.
Counsel and their contentions
16.I heard Mr.Vijay Narayan, Senior Counsel for Mr.Sarath Kumar, Mrs.Radha Gopalan for Ms.Bhargavi Gopalan and Mr.Palani for the writ petitioners, Hon’ble the Advocate General representing Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal, Additional Government Pleader for the 1st respondent and Mr.Siva Kumar appearing for the 2nd respondent representing Siva and Sesu Associates.
17.After narrating the facts, Mr.Vijay Narayan urged as follows:-
i. There are about 1000 south bound buses being operated from and to Chennai City. This is a minimum figure and a drop in the ocean when compared to nearly 20,000 buses that are being utilized by schools, colleges, corporate institutions, hospitals, etc., for operations inside the city.
ii. The impugned order has been issued for allegedly achieving the following objects:
(a)Terminating the south bound vehicles from entering the city of Chennai so to improve the air quality, de-congest the traffic in the Chennai city.
(b)To give a greater thrust to the rural and fast growing economy in the outskirts of the Chennai city and to improve the livelihood of the people living in Chengalpat District.
He urges that these reasons are make-believe and have been stated only for finding reasons in support of the impugned order.
iii. Inviting the attention of this Court to Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, he points out that the impugned order interferes with the right of omni bus operators to trade and profession and hence, it deserves to be interfered with.
iv. Placing heavy reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Tamil Nadu Omni Bus Owners’ Association vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2004) 1 CTC
161, he points out that the very same situation which prevailed when
Koyambedu omni bus terminus was created, prevails with respect to Kilambakkam also. Reading extensively from the judgment, he urges that the defects pointed out by this Court with respect to the establishment of the omni bus terminus at the Koyambedu market, applies in a greater force with respect to Kilambakkam bus terminus, and pleads the same to be interfered with. He adds that omni bus operators have created their own private parking lots in the city of Chennai, as directed by this Court in the judgment cited supra.
v. He states that by giving effect to the impugned order, if the buses are permitted to commence from private areas, then picking up and dropping passengers during their travel from south bound areas to Chennai and vice versa would be affected.
vi. He also points out that the distance between Kilambakkam and Chennai is nearly 35 kms. If passengers have to board or alight at Kilambakkam, it would become extremely difficult for them to travel from Kilambakkam to various points in the city of Chennai.
18.Mrs.Radha Gopalan after adopting the arguments of Mr.Vijay Narayan urges that the creation of the bus stand at Kilambakkam is in total violation of Rule 245 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicle Rules, which stipulates the particulars to be furnished by the local authority to the Regional Transport Authority (RTA) for approval of a bus stand for public service vehicles and the procedure to be complied therewith.
19.She points out that none of the steps had been followed in the present case. Instead of following Rule 245(a) to (c), the 4th respondent had directly gone to Rule 245(d) and had issued the order permitting the creation of the Kilambakkam bus stand.
20.Referring to the Division Bench judgment cited supra, she points out that Rule 245 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicle Rules has been held to be mandatory. She states that under Rule 245(a), the construction of a new bus terminus is permissible only after the RTA grants permission for the same. She pleads that before granting such a permission, the RTA should verify whether the requirements set forth in the said Rules are complied with. She adds that there are several classes of vehicles contemplated under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. These classes are found under Sections 2(21), 2(33) and 2(35). She also urged that the impugned order, by differentiating south bound omni buses from the northern and western bound vehicles, violates the principle of reasonable classification enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
21.She states that the classes of vehicles found under Rule 245(d) should be read with Rule 245(h), which indicates that the RTA may notify two categories of bus stands – one for stage carriages and the other for contract carriages. To that effect, she also refers to Section 86 of the Motor Vehicles Act to urge that if contract carriages are being used as stage carriages, the authorities would always have the power to initiate action. She states that, despite the fact that the petitioners have raised questions regarding jurisdiction, the respondents have avoided the said issue and have made untenable contentions that contract carriages are being used as stage carriages. She states that this is a new ground taken in the counter. In fine, the plea of Mrs.Radha Gopalan is that Rule 245 is mandatory and it has been breached and that the classification of vehicles on the basis of their destination is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.
22.Mr.Palani, in addition to the aforesaid contentions, urged that even though the order of the RTA dated 28.06.2023 and 21.12.2023 point out that the application had been made by the Commissioner, Kattankulathur Panchayat Union and Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority
(CMDA), CMDA cannot be treated as a “local authority” within the meaning of
Rule 245(a). To that effect, he invites the attention of this Court again to the
Division Bench judgment cited supra. He echoes the argument of Mrs.Radha Gopalan that it is mandatory to get permission prior to proceeding with the construction of a bus terminus. Referring to several Government Orders and the minutes of the meeting, he states that the respondents have put the cart before the horse and have constructed the bus terminus and have thereafter moved the RTA for permission.
23.He states that preventing south bound omni buses to enter the city of Chennai is an indirect method of nationalisation, as these buses are not permitted to enter into the city at all. Furthermore, referring to Section 74(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, he points out that the omni bus operators either have a permit all over the state of Tamil Nadu or all over India. By virtue of the impugned order, the permits granted have been indirectly varied. He states that no reliance can be made upon Rule 370 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicle Rules read with Section 115 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the respondents. He states that under Rule 370, it is only the authorities mentioned therein, who are empowered to pass an order and not the Transport Commissioner as in the present case. Furthermore, he pleads that the action of the respondents falls foul of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Municipal Council, Bhopal Vs. Sindhi Sahiti Multipurpose Transport Co-Op. Society Ltd. and another, (1973) 2 SCC 478 (paragraph No.10). He states that, in any event, as no Gazette notification has been issued as contemplated under Rule 370, the writ petitions have to succeed.
24.Hence, all the counsel plead that the writ petitions be allowed.
25.In response to these submissions, the Hon’ble Advocate General submitted that the Government had decided to create three special bus stands to cater the needs of those using public service vehicles. These are in Madhavaram, Kuthambakkam and Kilambakkam. These special bus stands would operate for vehicles leaving Chennai through North, West and South respectively. In a tongue-in-cheek manner, he added that no special bus stand is contemplated to the East, as Chennai is bounded by Bay of Bengal on that side.
26.Prior to this decision of creating Kilambakkam bus stand, it was
Koyambedu catering to the needs of all the buses leaving Chennai. This resulted in a traffic nightmare. It fell on the Government to take steps to de-congest the area. Once these three points are created, Koyambedu would serve as an exhibition for handicrafts and a centre to promote Tamil culture. He submitted that a decision was taken atleast a decade and three years earlier, but it took this long a period for the same to be implemented. He states that the local authority should file an application for the purpose of Rule 245 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. In order to substantiate this plea, he placed reliance upon Chapter-IV of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. He invited the attention of this Court to Section 2(23) of that Act which defines a local authority and states that, since the CMDA is a local authority, it is competent to file such an application.
27.He raises an additional plea that it is not a condition precedent, as argued by the petitioners, for the local authority to file an application under Rule 245 to open a stand. He argues, a bus stand can be opened and thereafter, ex post facto permission can be obtained. He states that under Rule 148 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, a State Transport Authority can exercise the power as done in the present case. He adds that in terms of the amendment made to Section 67 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the State Government is entitled to modify any scheme(s) when it seeks to promote an all round development and efficiency in transportation. In particular, he relies upon Section 67(3)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as amended by Act 32 of 2019.
28.In addition, he points out that an idle bus parking area for omni buses has been created along the Outer Ring Road at Varadharajapuram and this is about five minutes drive from Kilambakkam. It was developed since the private bus operators requested for such a facility. Having spent several crores of rupees at their instance, today, they are refusing to use the same.
29.Further, he circulated the notification issued by the Government of
Tamil Nadu, invoking clause (23-a) of Section 2 of the Tamil Nadu Town and
Country Planning Act, 1971, in G.O.(Ms).No.184, Housing and Urban Development [UD1] Department, dated 21.10.2022. By this Government Order, he points out that Kilambakkam, being a hamlet of Urapakkam, has been brought under the jurisdiction of CMDA and hence, it is the local body in issue. Lastly, he states that the petitioners are misusing their permit and after obtaining permits for contract carriages, they are operating their vehicles as stage carriages. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of these writ petitions.
30.He relied upon the following judgments to substantiate his plea:-
(i)Zakir Hussain and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 2001 Bom 21;
(ii)Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Dealers Association and others Vs. Government of India and others, AIR 2003 AP 134;
(iii)Tamil Nadu Omni Bus Owners, Assn. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2004 (1) CTC 161;
(iv)M/s.Sharma Transports Vs. Government of A.P. and another, in W.P.Nos.12509, etc., of 2005 dated
08.07.2005;
(v)M/s.Sharma Transports Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others, Civil Appeal No.4505 of 2007, dated 30.08.2012;
(vi)State of Tamil Nadu and others Vs. Tamil Nadu
Omni Bus Operators Asson., in Civil Appeal No(s).4182 of 2007, dated 30.08.2012;
(vii)Madurai Omni Bus Travels Owners Welfare
Association Vs. Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Transport Department and Ors., (2019) 7 MLJ 5;
(viii)Madurai Omni Bus Travels Owners Welfare
Association Vs. Secretary to Government of Tamil
Nadu, Transport Department and Ors., MANU/TN/0765/2025;
(ix)Interim order of this Court dated 09.02.2024 in W.P.Nos.2109, etc., of 2024.
Discussion, Analysis and Conclusion
31.I have carefully considered the submissions of both sides and I have gone through the records.
32.The Hon’ble Advocate General was kind enough to circulate the files of the Regional Transport Officer, Tambaram, as well as the Regional Transport Authority of Chengalpattu District. I had the benefit of going through those records also.
33.The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a comprehensive legislation. Apart from licensing and registration, it also has provisions relating to parking places and halting stations for motor vehicles and public service vehicles. Section 117 enables the State Government or any authority authorised by the State Government in consultation with the local authority, having jurisdiction over the area, to determine places where motor vehicles may stand either indefinitely or for a specified period of time. This provision covers public service vehicles also. This provision demands that the State Government should give primacy to the safety of road users and to keep in mind the free flow of traffic, before determining such places. In addition, this provision also enables the National
Highways Authority of India to determine such places. Section 117 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, corresponds to Section 76 of the Motor Vehicles Act, of 1939.
34.Under Section 138 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the power to make rules other than the matters specified under Section 137, has been vested with the State Government. Section 138(2)(e) empowers the State Government to make rules for the maintenance and management of parking places and stands and the fees which may be charged for the said use. In exercise of the rulemaking power, the State of Tamil Nadu has framed the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. Rule 245 provides for creation of public stands for public service vehicles.
35. ‘Public service vehicle’ is defined under Section 2(35) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is a wide definition which covers any motor vehicle used or adopted to be used for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward, and includes a maxi cab, a motor cab, contract carriage and stage carriage.‘Contract carriages’ are defined under Section 2(7); ‘stage carriage’ under Section 2(40); ‘omni bus’ under Section 2(29); ‘maxi cab’ under Section 2(22) and ‘motor cab’ under Section 2(25) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
‘Local Authority’
36.Neither the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, nor the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, define the meaning of a ‘local authority’. An indication can be taken from the General Clauses Act, 1897, as well as the Tamil Nadu General Clauses Act, 1891. The General Clauses Act, which is popularly called as “laws of laws”, applies to all central legislations which lack a specific definition. The definition in the General Clauses Act can be applied when there is nothing repugnant in the context of the specific legislation. If a statute or rule has defined a term, then the Court would have to refer only to that definition and not to the General Clauses Act. Yet, when the Act or Rules is silent, a Court is entitled to refer to the aforesaid Act. Article 367(1) of the Constitution of India mandates reference to the General Clauses Act for the interpretation of the
Constitution as it applies for the interpretation of an Act of the Legislature of the
Dominion of India. The General Clauses Act defines a ‘local authority’ under
Section 3(31). It reads as follows:-
“3(31). “local authority” shall mean a municipal committee, district board, body of port Commissioners or other authority legally entitled to, or entrusted by the Government with, the control or management of a municipal or local fund.”
37.This provision is in pari materia with Section 3(17) of the Tamil Nadu General Clauses Act, 1891. This section had come up for interpretation before the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. R.C.Jain and others, (1981) 2 SCC 308. The Court, applying the definition under Section 3(31) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, held that the Delhi Development Authority is a local authority, since it has its distinct corporate status, autonomous functioning within a defined area, democratic representation and the power to manage local functions through taxation and other means. The CMDA cannot be categorised as a local authority, either under Section 3(31) of the 1897 Act or Section 3(17) of 1891 Act, since it is not vested or entrusted by the Government with the control or management of general municipal or local funds.
Whether the CMDA can apply for approval under Rule 245?
38.The Hon’ble Advocate General submits that Rule 148 of the Tamil
Nadu Motor Vehicle Rules is only administrative in nature. Rule 149 enables the State Transport Authority to have Secretaries and Assistant Secretaries to assist him in the discharge of his functions. It is a settled position of law that, where a statute or a rule calls upon an authority by name to exercise that power, it is that authority which has to exercise the power in accordance with law.
39.The CMDA is not empowered by the Government to control and manage the general municipal or local funds for the Chennai area. This is because the municipal finances, including presentation of budgets, approvals, etc, are governed under the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1988, and the rules made thereunder. Municipalities and corporations maintain financial independence by drawing their own budgets and adopting proper financial tools for their management.
40.What then is the position of CMDA? CMDA was established under
Chapter-II-A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971.
41.The CMDA is a statutory body. By virtue of Section 9-B, it is a body corporate with perpetual succession and a common seal. It functions within the four corners of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. It is vested with several powers and functions as enunciated under Section 9-C of Chapter-II-A. One of the functions of the CMDA is to prepare a master plan or a detailed development plan which can provide for creation of bus stands. Section 9-C(iv), relied upon by the Hon’ble Advocate General, in my view, does not empower the CMDA to invoke Rule 245 of the Motor Vehicle Rules. Section 9-C merely enables the CMDA to ensure that the works contemplated in the development plan are carried out. This provision cannot be used to override the authority vested with the jurisdictional local authority. Otherwise, the purpose of dividing the powers amongst the local bodies, the Regional Transport Authority and the CMDA would vanish entirely in Chennai area. Section 9-C(iv) has to be read harmoniously with Rule 245 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicle Rules, Section 3(17) of the Tamil Nadu General Clauses Act, 1891 and the Tamil Nadu Urban and Local Bodies Act, 1998.
42.If the CMDA comes out with a master plan denoting that a particular area has to be reserved for a bus stand, it cannot straightaway make an application by invoking Rule 245 of the Motor Vehicles Rules. It has to route the application by invoking Section 9-C(iv) and thereby, calling upon the concerned local authority to make an application under Rule 245. Such an interpretation which will give life to all the relevant legislations, namely, Tamil Nadu General Clauses Act, 1891, the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971,
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as well as the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998. If the interpretation of Hon’ble the Advocate General is accepted, then, local bodies like the Greater Chennai Corporation, would be entirely shut out from their statutory power of invoking Rule 245.
43.A perusal of the records shows that the proposal of the Government to establish a separate bus terminal at Kilambakkam village has been implemented only by the CMDA and not by the local authority, namely the Kattankolathur Panchayat Union. The Government Order that was relied upon by the Hon’ble
Advocate General in G.O.(Ms).No.184, Housing and Urban Development
[UD1] Department, dated 21.10.2022, has been issued under Clause (23-a) of Section 2 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. By this provision, the Government has only expanded the jurisdiction of the CMDA over the areas specified in the schedule. Such an expansion under the Act cannot be treated as an automatic extension of the jurisdiction of the Greater Chennai Corporation or limiting the power of the Kattankolathur Panchayat Union over
Kilambakkam. The classification of local bodies is contemplated under Article
243Q of the Constitution of India and implementation thereof, is by virtue of Sections 3-B(3) & 3-B(4) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920.
44.Under the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998, a notification would have to be issued by the Governor under Section 3, Chapter-II. This notification is issued on the basis of the population of the area, the density of population, the revenue generated for local administration and several other factors specified therein. The power to include and exclude area of a local body is under Section 3(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998.
Similarly, insofar as Panchayats are concerned, the limits are also fixed by the
State Government by exercising the powers under Section 15 of Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994.
45.No notification has been produced by Hon’ble the Advocate General indicating the issuance of any notification in terms of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998, either limiting the jurisdiction of the Kattankolathur
Panchayat Union, or expanding the jurisdiction of the Greater Chennai Corporation.
46.A notification issued for implementing one legislation (Town and Country Planning Act) cannot be read as a notification issued under the two local body legislations. A conclusion of this discussion is that the CMDA is not a “local authority” and the notification expanding its jurisdiction under the Town and Country Planning Act cannot be utilised for the purpose of interpreting the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act or Rule 245 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicle Rules.
47.I have already pointed out that the application has been made only by the CMDA. As CMDA is not a local body, this application is not in accordance with law. There is a letter addressed by the Commissioner, Kattankolathur Panchayat Union to the Regional Transport Officer, Tambaram on 23.01.2023. A perusal of this letter shows that the Commissioner of the Panchayat Union had sought orders to classify the bus stand proposed by the Government and the CMDA to be treated as a Special Class bus stand. This cannot be treated as an application for the establishment of a bus stand at Kilambakkam.
Approval by the RTA
48.It is here that I have to consider whether Rule 245 being mandatory, a local body can take up construction of a public stand only after the approval of the Regional Transport Authority. Rule 245 points out that a local authority has to obtain the approval of any scheme for construction of a public stand. The application should be accompanied by a sketch of the proposed site and the blueprint of the structures proposed to be erected along with a fee. The blueprint should also have the approval of the Director of Town and Country Planning. In respect of the application made under Rules 245(a) (1) to 245(a)(12), the RTA is given the power to approve the scheme for construction of a public stand with or without any modification or refuse to approve the scheme. In case, the application is approved, the local authority has to report to the Regional
Transport Authority when the scheme has been implemented and thereafter, the Regional Transport Authority should notify the stand as a public stand for the particular class of public service vehicles for which the scheme was approved.
49.I would have agreed with the petitioners that the Kilambakkam Special Bus Stand ought not to have been established without prior approval, if not for the existence of Rule 245(e). Under Rule 245(e), if a local authority has already provided and is maintaining a public stand for public service vehicles with such amenities, it entitles the said authority to file an application to the concerned Regional Transport Authority for approval of the use of that stand for the purpose of picking up or setting down passengers of public service vehicles. The Regional Transport Authority is given the discretion to approve the use of the said stand, subject to certain directions as he may prescribe in terms of the First Schedule to the Rules within a reasonable time. Rule 245(e) indicates that even post the construction and maintaining of a public stand, a local authority can file an application and get the approval from the Regional Transport Authority.
50.Hence, the forcible plea made by the learned counsel for the
petitioners that, as the application has not been made by the local authority prior to the establishment of the Kilambakkam Bus Stand, the establishment must be declared as illegal, does not appeal to me. It is not in dispute that a bus stand offering several modern facilities and amenities have been established and is functioning, currently catering to the needs of lakhs of passengers. For the mere non-compliance of 245(a), I am not inclined to accept all the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners.
51.As the bus stand has already been established and is being run, in case, the Kattankolathur Panchayat Union desires to continue with the said bus stand, it is up to it to file an application under Section 245(e) to the Regional Transport Authority and if the application answers the requirements of the Act and rules, the Regional Transport Authority may grant the approval.
52.The conclusion of this discussion is that Rules 245(a) and 245(b) are enabling provisions. It is open to a local authority to establish and maintain a public stand and thereafter apply to the Regional Transport Authority for approval of the use of bus stand for a particular class of public service vehicles under Rule 245(e).
Tenability of order dated 22.01.2024
53.I will now turn my attention to the order passed by the State Transport
Authority on 22.01.2024. Invoking Rule 370 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, the State Transport Authority has prohibited the entry of south bound omni buses from entering the Koyambedu bus stand. He has further directed that the Koyambedu omni bus terminal will permit entry only for buses which are heading towards the western and northern areas of Tamil Nadu.
54.The corresponding provision for Rule 370 is Section 115 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Section 115 empowers the State Government or any authority authorised by the State Government for the reasons mentioned therein to prohibit or restrict the driving of motor vehicles or of any specified class or description of Motor Vehicles, etc., in a specified area or on a specified road. Rule 370 has been notified to implement the said section. Rule 370 has delegated this power of the Government to the State Transport Authority and Regional Transport Authority to pass appropriate orders.
55.This very issue was a subject matter of consideration by a Division
Bench of this Court when the Koyambedu bus terminus was notified. It was in
Tamil Nadu Omni Bus Owners Association Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2004) 1 CTC 161. The Division Bench consisting of B.Subhashan Reddy, CJ. and
D.Murugesan, J., held that the imposition of a total restriction in respect of All India permit holders from entering into Chennai city is unreasonable and contrary to the permit conditions. They further held that contract carriage buses operating on the strength of state permits also cannot be restricted from entering into the city of Chennai and that imposing such restrictions under Section 115 and Rule 370 cannot be countenanced. The Bench held that such restrictions are unreasonable and violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
56.The said judgment would apply to the present case in full force. A permit holder has a fundamental right to carry on his business under Article
19(1)(g). It has been so held in Saghir Ahmad Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 728. Once a permit is granted for a specific route or an area, the same cannot be unilaterally truncated to prevent holder of the permit from reaching the “last point” without a formal amendment to the permit. A survey of the Motor Vehicles Act shows that a Regional Transport Authority is entitled to curtail routes for permits. Reading of a few sections for this purpose would be necessary.
57.Section 72(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act vests a discretion on the Regional Transport Authority to grant a stage carriage permit “with such modifications as it deems fit”. The RTA has the power to curtail or prevent such routes as it deems fit at the time of granting permit. Under Section 80(3), a permit holder may file an application to vary the conditions of an existing permit by curtailment of the route or routes. If such an application is filed, it must be considered as an application for a new permit. This section contemplates certain procedures to be followed before restricting the route for a permit already granted. Section 103(2)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act enables the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority to pass an order modifying the terms of the existing permit so as to curtail the area or route covered by the permit insofar as such permit relates to the notified area or a notified route. Such an order is not capable of even being challenged by way of an appeal as per Section 103(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act.
58.I have referred to these provisions in order to point out that the Motor Vehicles Act contemplates a particular procedure for curtailment of route(s) granted under a permit. The effect of the impugned order dated 22.01.2024 is to curtail the permit of Southern bound buses to enter the City of Chennai and Koyambedu bus stand as a whole. They have been directed to operate from the Kilambakkam bus stand. Such an order amounts to restricting the right of a permit holder to operate from Kilambakkam bus stand into the city of Chennai. Such a restriction cannot be upheld with reference to Section 115 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rule 370 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicle Rules. As it is clear from a reading of the said provisions, the power has been granted to prohibit or restrict the driving of motor vehicles or of any specified class or description of motor vehicles on a particular road or in a specified area. This Rule does not enable the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority to restrict the operation on the basis of the destination of the vehicles. The Section and Rules do not discriminate on the basis of destination.
59.Finally, I turn to the argument of the Hon’ble Advocate General that Section 67(3)(c) enables the authorities to pass orders in the nature of the order impugned. A reading of Section 67(3) reveals that the State Government may, by notification published in the Official Gazette, modify any permit issued under the Act or make schemes for the transportation of goods and passengers and issue licences under such scheme for promotion of development and efficiency in transportation, inter alia, with a view to reducing traffic congestion. This provision, however, does not advance the case of the respondents. Admittedly, no Gazette notification has been issued by the State Government modifying the existing permits of the petitioners. All that has transpired is merely an order by the State Transport Authority dated 22.01.2024, prohibiting the entry of south-bound omni buses into the Koyambedu Bus
Stand. Such an order cannot be equated to a notification issued by the State
Government in exercise of its powers under Section 67(3)(c). The State Transport Authority cannot be equated to the State Government. The former cannot assume unto itself the powers statutorily vested in the later.
60.Equally untenable is the reliance placed upon Rule 148 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules. The said Rule is essentially administrative in character and does not confer any substantive power upon the State Transport Authority to issue an order of the nature impugned in the present case. Hence, the order dated 22.01.2024, restricting the exploitation of the permit by the permit holders of southern bound buses from entering the city of Chennai as well as by classifying the omni buses on the basis of their destination, is not only ultra vires the powers conferred on the STA, but also discriminatory and hence, deserves to be quashed.
61.I will now turn to the authorities cited by Hon’ble the Advocate General:-
(i).Zakir Hussain and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 2001 Bom 21:-
The challenge in the said case was of a notification issued by the District Collector of Akola, restricting the movement of heavy vehicles/private luxury buses through the three roads mentioned in the notification. The Court upheld the notification, holding that there were materials available with the Collector that the usage of private luxury buses / heavy vehicles on these three roads was causing nuisance and inconvenience to the public. Hence, it was held to be a valid exercise of power under Section 115 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is pertinent to point out here that there was no total ban on the buses entering into Akola town by the District Collector. What was prohibited was the entry of private luxury buses/heavy vehicles into the three roads, which was causing inconvenience to the public. In fact, the Government Pleader who appeared before the Division Bench had submitted that it was not a total ban, but it was restricted only to these three roads. This is not the situation in the present case. The omni buses which are southern bound have been banned from entering into the city of Chennai. Hence, this judgment cannot be utilised by the State to support the impugned order.
(ii).Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Dealers Association and others Vs.
Government of India and others, AIR 2003 AP 134:-
The challenge in the writ petition was the restriction of number of threewheeled contract carriages at Hyderabad to 68,467 and with a further direction that no new permit should be granted to such vehicles. The learned Judge referring to Section 74(3)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, held that the power is available to the Government to direct the State Transport Authority or a Regional Transport Authority to restrict the number of contract carriages. It further held that it was an exercise of that power that the “number of permits for stage or contract carriages” had been restricted. The situation here is not a restriction on the number of permits, but one regarding the total ban on the southern bound vehicles entering into the city of Chennai, when their permits empower them to ply all over the State of Tamil Nadu. Therefore, this judgment too does not apply to the facts of the case.
(iii).Tamil Nadu Omni Bus Owners Association Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2004) 1 CTC 161:-
This judgment, as is clear from reading paragraph No.11 thereof, instead of going in favour of the respondents, can be read only in favour of the petitioners. In fact, the Division Bench had held that the restriction on omni buses to enter into the city of Chennai would amount to an unreasonable restriction, and having come to that conclusion, it quashed the impugned order in that case.
(iv).M/s.Sharma Transports Vs. Government of A.P. and another, in W.P.Nos.12509, etc., of 2005 dated 08.07.2005:-
The challenge in that writ petition was an order passed by the
Government restricting the entry of private buses into the arterial roads of the Hyderabad city between 07.00 AM and 10.00 PM. The said restriction was upheld on the ground that it does not violate the fundamental rights, but rather restricts it in the public interest. I should point out that, when the matter was carried to the Supreme Court in (M/s.Sharma Transports Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others, Civil Appeal No.4505 of 2007 dated 30.08.2012), a Bench of three Judges extracted the counter affidavit filed by the Commissioner of Police to the effect that the restrictions would apply if a contract carriage operates as a stage carriage, and as long as they operate as contract carriages, the restrictions would not apply. The judgment of the
Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and that of the Supreme Court make it clear that there cannot be a restriction on the entry of a contract carriage, as long as they function as one.
(v).The next two judgments relates to Madurai Town. They are as follows:-
(a).Madurai Omni Bus Travels Owners Welfare Association Vs.
Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Transport Department and others,
(2019) 7 MLJ 5;
(b).Madurai Omni Bus Travels Owners Welfare Association Vs.
Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu and others, MANU/TN/0765/2025.
A learned Single Judge in the first case held that as Madurai is a smaller city than the city of Chennai, restricting the omni buses only to Mattuthavani bus stand, situated inside the Madurai town, is not arbitrary or violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The Division Bench in the second case addressed this view, holding that the Madurai city had been taken as a specified area and as Madurai is smaller than the city of Chennai, such restrictions can be imposed. Since, it is an area specific judgment, it cannot be applied to the city of Madras. Therefore, none of the authorities relied upon by the Hon’ble Advocate General apply to the facts of the case.
62.Pending the writ petition, my predecessor Hon’ble Dr.Justice R.N.Manjula, taking into consideration the needs of the public, construction of the Kilambakkam bus stand as well as the right of the writ petitioners, called upon all the parties to sit and negotiate and arrive at a mutually acceptable conclusion.
63.Pursuant to the negotiations, the parties had agreed to proposal No.1 set forth below to be in operation pending the writ petition:-
“PROPOSAL No.1:-
Most of the Omni Bus Operators who are all running travels business are having their own place (Garage) or rented place for operating, parking and maintaining of their vehicles. The Government can consider permitting / allowing those operators to operate from their own place and to reach Killambakkam bus stand for operating to southbound districts. It is important to point out that even prior to the issuance of the present impugned proceedings, when the Omni buses were being operated from Koyambedu bus stand, this facility was available.”
64.After the conclusion of arguments, I called upon the parties to exhibit a similar spirit of cooperation so that the travelling public are not affected and at the same time, the Constitutional rights of the operators are not impaired. The parties met at Kilambakkam bus stand and negotiated with the authorities. The conclusion arrived at between them, as regards the arrangements for procedure in relation to pick up / drop off points as well as the utilisation of the Varadharajapuram omni buses parking area, is scanned and extracted hereunder:-

65.The same shall continue to be in force and strictly be adhered to. The fear of the authorities, as expressed by Hon’ble the Advocate General that the parties might utilize this arrangement and violate the permit conditions, in my view, is unfounded. This is because the authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act are sufficiently empowered under Section 86 of the Motor Vehicles Act to initiate proceedings against any permit holder who violates the permit conditions. The view taken by me finds support in the verdict of the Supreme Court judgment in Union of India Vs. R.C.Jain and others, (1981) 2 SCC 308 and Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow Vs. U.P. Forest Corporation, (1998) 3 SCC 530.
66.Article 14 demands that similarly situated persons should be considered similarly. The discrimination on the basis of the destination cannot find acceptance by this Court. Hence, the impugned order dated 22.01.2024 is quashed.
67.In the light of the above discussions, these writ petitions are ordered in the following terms:-
(i)CMDA is not a local authority for the purpose of Rule 245 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicle Rules;
(ii)Rule 245(e) permits a local authority, if it has established and
has been maintaining a bus stand, to apply for an ex post facto approval to the Regional Transport Authority. The concerned local authority, namely the Kattankolathur Panchayat Union, if it so desires, can file an appropriate application to operate the
Kilambakkam Bus Stand at Kilambakkam;
(iii)The order dated 22.01.2024, restricting south bound omni buses into the city of Chennai, is unconstitutional and illegal.
Hence, it is quashed;
(iv)The arrangement entered into between the parties on 12.01.2026, subject to Section 86 of the Motor Vehicles Act, can continue. In addition, the restrictions imposed on the bus operators in Tamil Nadu Omni Bus Owners’ Association vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2004) 1 CTC 161, will also have to be strictly enforced.
No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
05-06-2026
krk/Lm Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Internet:Yes
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
WP No. 2301 of 2024
To
1.The Transport Commissioner
Cum State Transport Authority, Chepauk, Chennai-005.
2.The Chairman And Managing Director
Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Egmore, Chennai-008.
3.State Express Transport
Corporation (tamil Nadu) Ltd., Rep. By Its Managing Director, Thiruvalluvar Illam, No.2 Pallavan Salai, Chennai 600 002.(r3impleaded As Per Order Dated 07.02.2024 In Wmp.3155/2024 In
Wp.2301/2024 By Rnmj)
WP No. 2646 of 2024
To
1.The State Of Tamil Nadu
Rep By Its Secretary Home, Transport Department Fort St. George, Chennai- 009.
2.The Transport Commissioner /
State Transport Authority Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai-05.
3.Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority
Thalamuthu Natarajan Building, No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai-08.
4.The Regional Transport Authority Chengalpet.
5.State Express Transport
Corporation(tamil Nadu) Ltd., Rep. By Its Managing Director, Thiruvalluvar Illam, No. 2, Pallavan Salai, Chennai – 600 002.
(r5-impleaded As Per Order Dated 09.02.2024 In
Wmp.3452/2024 In Wp.2646/2024 By Rnmj)
WP No. 2380 of 2024
To
1.The State Of Tamilnadu
Rep. By Its Secretary, Home Transport Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 9
2.The Transport Commissioner/
State Transport Authority, Ezhilagam, Chepauk Chennai 05
3.Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority
Thalamuthu Natarajan Building, No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore Chennai 08
4.The Regional Transport Authority Chengalpet
5.State Express Transport
Corporation (tamil Nadu) Ltd., Rep. By Its Managing Director, Thiruvalluvar Illam, No.2 Pallavan Salai, Chennai 600 002.
(r5-impleaded As Per Order Dated 07.02.2024 In Wmp.3157/2024 In Wp.2380/2024 By Rnmj)
WP No. 2382 of 2024
To
1.The State Of Tamilnadu
Rep. By Its Secretary, Home Transport Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 9
2.The Transport Commissioner/
State Transport Authority, Ezhilagam, Chepauk Chennai 05
3.Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority
Thalamuthu Natarajan Building, No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore Chennai 08
4.The Regional Transport Authority Chengalpet
5.State Express Transport
Corporation (tamil Nadu) Ltd., Rep. By Its Managing Director,
Thiruvalluvar Illam, No.2 Pallavan Salai, Chennai 600 002.(r5impleaded As Per Order Dated 07.02.2024 In Wmp.3160/2024 In
Wp.2382/2024 By Rnmj)
WP No. 2109 of 2024
To
1.The Transport Commissioner Cum State Transport Authority, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.
2.The Chairman And Managing Director
Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.
3.State Express Transport
Corporation (tamil Nadu) Ltd., Rep. By Its Managing Director, Thiruvalluvar Illam, No.2 Pallavan Salai, Chennai 600 002.(r3impleaded As Per Order Dated 07.02.2024 In Wmp.3147/2024 In
Wp.2109/2024 By Rnmj)
WP No. 2110 of 2024
To
1.The Transport Commissioner Cum State Transport Authority, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.
2.The Chairman And Managing Director
Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.
3.State Express Transport
Corporation (tamil Nadu) Ltd., Rep. By Its Managing Director, Thiruvalluvar Illam, No.2 Pallavan Salai, Chennai 600 002.(r3impleaded As Per Order Dated 07.02.2024 In Wmp.3150/2024 In
Wp.2110/2024 By Rnmj)
WP No. 2205 of 2024
To
1.The State Of Tamil Nadu
Rep By Its Secretary, Home (transport) Department, Fort St.
George, Chennai- 009.
2.The Transport Commissioner Ehilagam, Chepauk, Chennai- 005.
3.State Express Transport
Corporation (tamil Nadu) Ltd., Rep. By Its Managing Director, Thiruvalluvar Illam, No.2 Pallavan Salai, Chennai 600 002.(r3impleaded As Per Order Dated 07.02.2024 In Wmp.3153/2024 In
Wp.2205/2024 By Rnmj) 
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN J.
krk/Lm
WP No. 2301 of 2024
AND WMP NO. 2588 OF 2024,WMP NO. 2587 OF 2024,WMP NO. 2912 OF 2024,WP NO. 2646 OF 2024,WMP NO.
2910 OF 2024,WMP NO. 2911 OF
2024,WMP NO. 2393 OF 2024,WMP NO. 2396 OF 2024,WP NO. 2380 OF 2024,WP NO. 2382 OF 2024,WMP NO.
2491 OF 2024,WMP NO. 2259 OF
2024,WMP NO. 2260 OF 2024,WMP
NO. 2261 OF 2024,WMP NO. 2492 OF
2024,WMP NO. 2584 OF 2024,WMP
NO. 2582 OF 2024,WMP NO. 2258 OF
2024,WMP NO. 2585 OF 2024,WMP
NO. 2586 OF 2024,WP NO. 2109 OF 2024,WP NO. 2110 OF 2024,WP NO.
2205 OF 2024
05-06-2026

தனியார் ஆம்னி பேருந்துகள் கிளாம்பாக்கத்தில் இருந்து தான் இயக்க வேண்டும் என மாநில போக்குவரத்து ஆணையம் பிறப்பித்த உத்தரவை ரத்து செய்து சென்னை உயர்நீதிமன்றம் உத்தரவிட்டுள்ளது.

சென்னையில் இருந்து தென் மாவட்டங்களுக்கு செல்லும் அனைத்து தனியார் ஆம்னி பேருந்துகள், கிளாம்பாக்கம் பேருந்து முனையத்திலிருந்து தான் இயக்கப்பட வேண்டும் என்றும், சென்னை நகருக்குள் நுழையக்கூடாது என்றும், மீறினால் நடவடிக்கை எடுக்கப்படும் என, கடந்த 2024 ஆம் ஆண்டு ஜனவரி 22 ஆம் தேதி மாநில போக்குவரத்து துறை ஆணையம் உத்தரவு பிறப்பித்தது.

இந்த உத்தரவை எதிர்த்து தனியார் பேருந்து நிறுவனங்கள் சார்பிலும், ஆம்னி பேருந்து உரிமையாளர்கள் சங்கம் சார்பிலும் வழக்குகள் தாக்கல் செய்யப்பட்டன.

இந்த வழக்குகளை விசாரித்த உயர்நீதிமன்றம், போரூர், சூரப்பட்டு ஆகிய இடங்களில் பயணிகளை ஏற்றி, இறக்க ஆம்னி பேருந்துகளுக்கு அனுமதியளித்ததுடன், தென் மாவட்டங்களுக்குச் செல்லும் அனைத்து பேருந்துகளும் கிளாம்பாக்கம் பேருந்து முனையத்துக்குள் சென்று பயணிகளை ஏற்றி, இறக்க வேண்டும் எனவும் இடைக்கால உத்தரவை பிறப்பித்திருந்தது.

இந்த வழக்கின் இறுதி விசாரணையை மேற்கொண்ட நீதிபதி வி.லட்சுமி நாராயணன், தமிழ்நாடு மோட்டார் வாகன சட்ட விதிகளின்படி, பேருந்து முனையம் அமைக்க மாநில போக்குவரத்து ஆணையத்தின் ஒப்புதல் கோரி சென்னை பெருநகர வளர்ச்சி குழுமம் விண்ணப்பிக்க முடியாது; சம்பந்தப்பட்ட உள்ளாட்சி அமைப்பு தான் விண்ணப்பிக்க முடியும் என்பதால், கிளாம்பாக்கம் பேருந்து முனையத்துக்கு ஒப்புதல் கோரி காட்டாங்குளத்தூர் பஞ்சாயத்து யூனியன், மாநில போக்குவரத்து ஆணையத்துக்கு விண்ணப்பிக்கலாம் என உத்தரவிட்டுள்ளார்.

மேலும், குறிப்பிட்ட வழித்தடத்தில் பேருந்து இயக்க உரிமம் வழங்கிய நிலையில், அதை தடுக்க முடியாது எனத் தெரிவித்த நீதிபதி, தனியார் ஆம்னி பேருந்துகள் கிளாம்பாக்கத்தில் இருந்து தான் இயக்க வேண்டும் என மாநில போக்குவரத்து ஆணையம் பிறப்பித்த உத்தரவை ரத்து செய்து உத்தரவிட்டார்.

கடந்த ஜனவரி மாதம் போக்குவரத்து துறை அதிகாரிகள், ஆம்னி பஸ் உரிமையாளர்கள் நடத்திய பேச்சுவார்த்தையில், போரூர் சுங்கச்சாவடி அல்லது சூரப்பேடு ஆகிய இடங்களில் பயணிகளை ஏற்றி இறக்குவதைப் போல, மாதவரம் ரவுண்டானா அருகில் உள்ள இடத்தையும் பயன்படுத்துவது என எடுக்கப்பட்ட முடிவை கண்டிப்புடன் பின்பற்ற வேண்டும் என நீதிபதி உத்தரவிட்டுள்ளார்.