(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking to issue Writ of Mandamus, to forbear the 4th and 5th Respondents to construct Bus Stand in Survey No. 312/1, Kumarapuram, Mela Tiruchendur Village, Tiruchendur Taluk, and consequently, to direct the 4th and 5th Respondents to construct the Bus Stand in Survey Nos.291, 292 and 295/2, Mattuthavani Area, Keela Tiruchendur Village, Tiruchendur Taluk as requested in the Petition dated 18.06.2026 of the petitioner.

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking to issue Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 4th and 5th respondents to collect suggestions and objections from the General Public and other interested persons to finalise the Construction Site of Bus Stand in the light of provision of Section 16 of the Tamil Nadu Infrastructure Development Act 2012 as requested in the Petition of the Petitioner dated 27.01.2025, 06.10.2025 and 23.07.2026.)

Common Order:

C.V. Karthikeyan, J.

1. Both the Writ Petitions relate to the proposal to construct a bus stand at Tiruchendur in the lands in S.No.312/1, Kumarapuram, Mela Tiruchendur in Tiruchendur.

2. The Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.20226 of 2026 has been filed in the nature of a Mandamus seeking a restraint against the 4th and 5th respondents, the District Collector, Tuticorin and the Commissioner, Tiruchendur Municipality from constructing the bus stand at the aforementioned lands in S.No.312/1, Kumarapuram, Mela Tiruchendur in Tiruchendur. A direction is also sought against the said respondents to construct the bus stand in the lands in S.Nos.291, 292 and 295/2, Mattuthavani area, Keela Tiruchendur, Tiruchendur.

3. W.P.(MD)No.21884 of 2026 has also been filed in the nature of a Mandamus seeking a direction to the fourth and fifth respondents, again the District Collector, Tuticorin District and the Commissioner of Tiruchendur Municipality, to finalise the construction site of the bus stand in accordance with the provisions of Section 16 of the Tamil Nadu Infrastructure Development Act, 2012.

4. In W.P.(MD)No.20226 of 2026, a third party had filed W.M.P. (MD)No.17137 of 2026 seeking to implead himself as a further respondent in the Writ Petition. He claims that he represents the 13th ward of the Municipal Council of Tiruchendur Municipality and he aligns himself with the Writ Petitioner in seeking a restraint against construction of bus stand in the lands at S.No.312/1, Kumarapuram, Mela Tiruchendur, Tiruchendur.

5. In the same Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.20226 of 2026, the Writ Petitioner had filed W.M.P.(MD)No.16970 of 2026 seeking to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to visit and inspect the aforementioned lands and to file a report.

6. In effect, all the petitioners are aggrieved by the decision of the 4th and 5th respondents, the District Collector, Tuticorin District and the Commissioner of Tiruchendur Municipality, to put up the new bus stand at the lands in S.No.312/1, Kumarapuram, Mela Tiruchendur, Tiruchendur instead of at the lands in S.Nos.291, 292 and 295/2 of Mattuthavani area, Keela Tiruchendur, Tiruchendur, which lands, according to them, was the site originally determined for construction of the new bus stand.

7. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to examine the following scanned map showing the location of the existing bus stand, the location which was originally proposed in S.Nos.291, 292, 295/2, Mattuthavani area, Keela Tiruchendur, Tiruchendur, and the land now proposed for construction of the bus stand in S.No.312/1, Kumarapuarm, Mela Tiruchendur in Tiruchendur. The Tiruchendur Temple is further towards east abutting the sea shore.

                  

8. A proposal had been taken up for discussion by Tiruchendur Municipality to shift the existing bus stand owing to among other reasons, congestion of traffic. The lands in S.Nos.291, 292 and 295/2, Mattuthavani area, Keela Tiruchendur, had been identified and as is seen from the map is actually more closer to the Temple. The lands in S.No.312/1, Kumarapuram in Mela Tiruchendur which had been subsequently identified are situated at quite some distance away, where, at present, there is no traffic congestion. The respondents have held out that they would be operating town buses or what could be called satelite services from the new bus stand area to the Temple or to the existing bus stand. Further, the existing bus stand is not going to be closed, as there are public transport buses, which come from Tuticorin, which necessarily have to come to the existing bus stand. Some of the buses in some of the routes alone will be shifted to the new bus stand to decongest the traffic. This alternate proposal is put to serious test in these Writ Petitions filed as Public Interest Litigations.

9. In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No. 20226 of 2026, the Writ Petitioner, an Advocate, and a native of Tiruchendur, has stated that within 500 metre radius from the present bus stand, all important offices, like, Subordinate Court, District Munsif Court and Judicial Magistrate Court, Taluk Office, Taluk Police Station, Temple Police Station, All Women Police Station, Sub Registrar Office, Taluk Office, Post Office, Life Insurance Corporation of India Office, Union Office, Treasury Office, eight scheduled Banks, Union India Insurance Company Office, Government Higher Secondary School for Boys and also for Girls, Railway Station, Government Hospital, Veterinary Hospital, daily vegetable and fruits market, fish and meat market, office of the MLA, Food Safety Office, Land Development Bank, Electricity Board Office, Fire Station, Regional Transport Office, Library, Agricultural Office, petrol bunks, mosque and Aditanar College, are situated. The Temple/Arulmigu Subramaniya Swamy Temple is located 1.5 km away from the present bus stand.

10. He had further stated that 109 omni buses, 27 State Express Transport buses and 203 mofussil buses are operated from the existing bus stand to various Districts. There are also 6 passenger trains and one express train which also operate from Tiruchendur. Further, approximately 13,000 to 16,000 people visit Tiruchendur for job, education, banking purposes and to the hospital and incidentally also to worship the Deity at the Temple. It was stated that the Temple is the main attraction and during festival days, nearly a lakh and more devotees flow to the Temple. There are also festivals when nearly 10,00,000 people come over to the Temple. It had been further stated that there are four major roads, which are all one way roads and they all converge to the existing bus stand.

11. He had further stated that the residents of the four car streets and adjoining streets face difficulties owing to the numerous vehicles which ply to the Temple. There are both dust and sound pollution. The traffic causes serious hardship to pedestrians and residents.

12. The petitioner filed an earlier Writ Petition before this Court seeking additional amenities and to provide parking in a manner, wherein, the vehicle do not enter into Tiruchendur Town. It was also contended that there are several lodges in the adjoining streets and those who come to stay in the lodges are also a cause for increase in vehicular and foodfall traffic.

13. It was further stated that a proposal had been made to construct a new bus stand at Mattuthavani area in Keela Tiruchendur Village. It was informed to the petitioner that soil bearing capacity test and other tests had also been done in the said lands. The petitioner stated that the views of the stakeholders will also have to be obtained. This is required under Section 16 of the Tamil Nadu Infrastructure Development Act, 2012 relating to project implementation through public-private partnership, wherein, objections and suggestions must be received from all stakeholders and duly considered.

14. The Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.20226 of 2026 had been filed seeking that the new bus stand should be constructed only at the lands in S.Nos.291, 292, 295/2 Mattuthavani area, Keela Tiruchendur Village and further seeking a restraint against the District Collector and the Commissioner of Tiruchendur Municipality from constructing the bus stand at the lands in 312/1, Kumarapuram, Mela Tiruchendur,

15. W.M.P.(MD)No.16970 of 2026 had been filed by the Writ Petitioner seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to visit the lands in S.No.312/1 and to file a report regarding the facilities at both the lands in S.Nos.291, 292, 295/2 and in 312/1 and also about the traffic congestion at both places.

16. In W.P.(MD)No.20226 of 2026, a third party had filed W.M.P. (MD)No.17137 of 2026 seeking to implead himself as a respondent. He claimed to be a Municipal Councilor. He also contended that the new bus stand should not be constructed in the lands in S.No.312/1, Kumarapuram, Mela Tiruchendur and should be constructed only in the lands in S.Nos.291, 292 and 295/2, Mattuthavani area, Keela Tiruchendur. He claimed that the decision to construct the bus stand at the lands in S.No.312/1 had been taken without public consultation and to favour to those who want to put up commercial complexes near the proposed bus stand.

17. Independent of this Writ Petition and its connected Miscellaneous Petitions, W.P.(MD)No.21884 of 2026 had been filed again in the nature of a Mandamus seeking a direction to collect suggestions and objections from the general public before finalizing the construction of the bus stand. It had been stated that such suggestions and objections should be obtained in accordance with Section 16 of the Tamil Nadu Infrastructure Development Act, 2012.

18. In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition in W.P. (MD)No.21884 of 2026, which is practically a photocopy version of the affidavit filed in support of W.P.(MD)No.20226 of 2026, it had been stated that it is not advisable to construct the bus stand in the lands in S.No.312/1 at Kumarapuram, Mela Tiruchendur Village and that it is not an ideal place to construct the bus stand. It had therefore been stated that there should be consultations with the stakeholders before finalising the site for construction of the new bus stand.

19. The fourth respondent/District Collector, Tuticorin District, had filed a report. In the report, it had been stated that in the meeting of the Tiruchendur Municipal Council held on 30.04.2025, a proposal was putforth to construct a new bus stand at a total cost of Rs.1810.00 lakhs. The funding pattern was 50% by the Government grant and 50% from the municipal contribution. This project was also approved in a resolution of the Council. Technical sanction was also granted on 03.05.2025. Tenders were called on 12.06.2025. Thereafter, it was decided to examine an alternate location and accordingly, the lands in S.No.312/1, Kumarapuram, Mela Tiruchendur was identified.

20. It had also been stated that by the proceedings of the District Collector, dated 20.11.2025, enter upon permission on the said lands was also granted. The total area of the land is 1.58.50 hectares and it was classified as dry waste land. A sum of Rs.12,03,115/- was directed to be remitted to the Government accounts towards grant of such permission. The Municipal Council by its resolution, dated 27.11.2025 approved the shifting of the bus stand and directed conducting soil test and to issue work order for construction of the new bus stand. Thereafter, instructions were issued to conduct field inspection through the Regional Director of Municipal Administration.

21. It had been stated that the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Urban Finance and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited, had also issued necessary directions to convene a stakeholders consultation. Accordingly, stakeholders and public consultation meeting was held on 24.12.2025. The site at S.No.312/1, Kumarapuram, Mela Tiruchendur was approved. A joint inspection was conducted by the Director of Municipal Administration, the District Collector, the Regional Director of Municipal Administration, the Regional Executive Engineer, the Divisional Engineer (Highways Department), the General Manager, Government Bus Depot and the Traffic Police Inspector. This fact was conveyed to the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Urban Finance and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited, by letter of the Director of Municipal Administration, dated 26.12.2025.

22. It had also been stated that revised administrative sanction was also accorded during the 31st Common Project Sanctioning and Monitoring Committee meeting held on 13.01.2026 after soil testing was conducted and the site was found suitable. Work order was issued on 21.01.2026. The structural design was obtained on 15.05.2026. The digging of foundation for construction of the new bus stand at S.No.312/1 had been fully completed. The project is under active execution.

23. It was further stated that requirement of a new bus stand was due to severe operational strain on the existing terminal, which was built in the year 2007 with only 10 bays. There are 442 daily bus operations including high frequency routes to Tirunelveli, Nagercoil, Madurai, Tuticorin and long distance SETC express line.

24. It had been further stated that there is also footfall of pilgrims numbering 20,000 on regular week days which increase to over 1,00,000 during festivals. In the proposed terminal, the active passenger bay would be increased to 20 and there would also bays for 8 idle buses. This would re-route heavy intercity transit away from the dense core roads and reduce town-wide traffic blocks and bottlenecks. It was also stated that it had been proposed to introduce 24x7 shuttle service to the old bus stand and to the Temple from the new bus stand. It was further stated that the land in S.Nos. 291, 292 and 295/2 was just behind the existing bus stand and shared a common entry and exist point. It would only increase the congestion.

25. It was further stated that the lands in S.No.312/1 are very close to the National Highway and therefore, long distance and intercity buses can access the same without entering into the town. It had also been stated that a dedicated 10 meter wide approach road had also been sanctioned to the new bus stand. The road formation work had also commenced and is underway. It was stated that it was not an unilateral decision to shift the bus stand to that place, but the decision was taken only after multi departmental consultations and consensus involving the Revenue Department, Highways Department, the Transport Corporation, Municipal Administration, Traffic Police and also the local public and stakeholders. The Anna University had also undertaken soil stability and foundational safety verification. It was therefore contended that the site had been chosen after careful examination of all required para meters. It was therefore urged that the Writ Petitions should be dismissed.

26. The Commissioner, Tiruchendur Municipality also filed a counter affidavit, wherein, he had stated about the inter-departmental consultation which was done before choosing the site for bus stand. It was also stated that substantial number of additional buses have to be operated during festival times and this leads to severe traffic congestion. It was also stated that a field inspection was done at the site of the proposed new bus stand and the land was found suitable on all aspects. It was stated that the Writ Petitions had been filed without bona fide intention. It had been stated that consultation had been done with all stakeholders. Substantial construction has already been completed. It was stated that the bus stand is constructed in the interest of public.

27. A rejoinder had been filed by the Writ Petitioner, wherein, he had stated that the new site had been chosen on the recommendation of a Member of Parliament, and the site was not to the liking of the general public. It was stated that the decision was misconceived. It was stated that a notice period of 30 days should have been given to the general public to express their views, but the same was not done in the instant case. It was further contended that the Mattuthavani area in S.Nos.291, 292 and 295/2 is the optimum place to construct the bus stand, as this site is more closer to the Temple and would be beneficial to the devotees, who visit the temple.

28. It had been stated that the proposed site at S.No.312/1, would not ease traffic. It had been stated that the Road Traffic Officer has to give permission for construction of the new bus stand and that the safety of the road users must be kept in mind. It was stated that there must be a direction to comply with Rule 245 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. It had been stated that paper publication had not been effected before the stakeholders meeting and it was seriously disputed whether such a meeting was ever conducted. It was contended that the Writ Petitions should be allowed.

29. Mr.S.Shankar, learned Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No. 20226 of 2026 in his arguments pointed out that a decision had been taken to shift the existing bus stand and only after due consultation. Therefore, following established procedure, a site had been identified in the lands in S.Nos.291, 292 and 295/2 in Mattuthavani area, Keela Tiruchendur, which was very close to the existing bus stand. He pointed out the advantages by stating that all Government offices, Courts, Hospitals, College and Government Schools are situated close to the existing bus stand. It was also very close to the Temple and therefore, would be very useful for the general public and also to the pilgrims, who come to the Temple. The learned Counsel further pointed out that thereafter, a decision had been unilaterally taken to shift the site to the land in S.Nos.315/1 at Kumarapuam, Mela Tiruchendur, which site is a little far away from the central town. The learned Counsel alleged mala fide in the choice of said site stating that it had been influenced by those who want to take advantage of the surrounding areas and build commercial complexes.

30. He contended that that there was no proper consultation with the public as envisaged under Section 16 of the Tamil Nadu Infrastructure Development Act, 2012. The learned Counsel also pointed that a perusal of the counter affidavit would show that a direction had been issued to have such a consultation and that the consultation was done on the very next day. He pointed out that the provision requires 30 days notice to be given for effective representations to be made. The learned Counsel imputed malice on the part of the District administration in choosing the new site.

31. He also pointed out that even if the bus stand is shifted, there will be traffic in the existing bus stand with buses from Tuticorin arriving in the old bus stand. The new bus stand would be away from the central town. He further argued that this Court should prohibit the construction of the bus stand in the said place at Kumarapuram, Mela Tiruchendur and alternatively direct construction of the bus stand at Mattuthavani area, Keela Tiruchendur.

32. Mr.M.P.Senthil, learned Government Pleader however disputed all these contentions. The learned Government Pleader pointed that the new site had been chosen only to decongest the heavy traffic in and around Tiruchendur town and the Temple. He pointed out that the footfall of pilgrims exceeds 10,000 every day and touches more than a lakh on festival occasions. It was not only the footfall, but also vehicular traffic which increase very considerably during festival times. It was contended that special buses are also run for the festival. The learned Government Pleader therefore stated that taking consideration all these aspects, it had been decided to shift the bus stand to a place outside the main town. He assured that shuttle services would be operated from the new bus stand to the existing bus stand for the benefit of the pilgrims.

33. With respect to the stipulations that public opinion should be obtained, the learned Government Pleader pointed out that the said stipulation would apply only with respect to infrastructure constructed with public-private partnership. In the instant case, the land which has now been chosen belongs to the District administration and the Collector had also transferred the said lands and enter upon permission had also been given. The learned Government Pleader pointed out that foundation work had been practically completed and substantial efforts had been taken by the contractor in this regard.

34. Mr.H.Arumugam, learned Counsel for the Municipality also argued that the decision to shift the bus stand to the new site had been taken after giving due consideration to all factors, with intention to decongest the traffic in Tiruchendur town. He pointed out the number of bays that would be constructed in the new bus stand and also the bays for idle buses. He further pointed out that soil testing and all other tests had been conducted and the new place was found to be extremely suitable for the construction of the new bus stand. The learned Counsel stated that there was no malice in the choosing of the site for the new bus stand. The construction of the bus stand would benefit the general public and would also ease the traffic near the Temple.

35. Mr.M.Muthu Geethayan, learned Counsel for the 6th respondent/the Temple administration pointed out that construction of the new bus stand would benefit the temple authorities to manage flow of devotees, as there is a daily huge in flow of pilgrims. The number of pilgrims increase during the festivals in the temple. They all congregate in the narrow area between the existing bus stand and the Temple. When the bus stand is re-located to a little distance away, there would be spread of the pilgrims and this would also enable the temple authorities to organise the functions effectively and to regulate the flow of devotees in a better manner. He also contended that there was no malice in the choice of the new site.

36. The learned Counsel who had filed the impleading application also supported the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.20226 of 2026.

37. The learned Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.21884 of 2026 also supported the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.20226 of 2026.

38. We have carefully considered the arguments advanced and perused the material records and also the written arguments filed.

39. It is the contention of of the petitioners that a decision had been taken to shift the existing bus stand at Tiruchendur to an alternate place. Resolution had been passed by the Municipal Council. It had been initially decided to shift the existing bus stand to an adjacent place in S.Nos.291, 292 and 295/2 at Mattuthavani area, Keela Tiruchendur. The petitioners in both the Writ Petitions and also in the impleading petition contended that this is a suitable place for relocating the existing bus stand. Necessary funds had also been allotted for construction of the new bus stand. Thereafter, a decision had been taken to look out for an alternate place. A decision had therefore been taken to construct the new bus stand in the Government poromboke lands available at S.No.312/1, Kumarapuram, Mela Tiruchendur. This decision to shift the site of the new bus stand is the cause for institution of these Writ Petitions.

40. The fact that the existing bus stand necessarily has to be upgraded and the only possible manner in which it can be upgraded is by construction of a new bus stand is not in dispute. The fact that surrounding the existing bus stand, there are Government Offices, Schools, Courts and Hospital, which are generally places which attract congestion, is not in dispute. The fact that Tiruchendur attracts a huge number of pilgrims, who visit the famous Arulmigu Subramaniya Swamy Temple is also not in dispute. It is estimated that every day, about 20,000 pilgrims visit the Temple. The number of pilgrims increase to nearly more than a lakh and some times touches five lakhs, when important festivals are conducted in the Temple. To absorb this footfall and the consequential flow of vehicular traffic, there was an immediate need to decongest the central point in Tiruchendur town. The existing bus stand is very close to the Temple. The buses still ply upto the existing bus stand and go to the other destinations.

41. It is also seen that in the existing bus stand, there are only ten bus bays. This is not sufficient. The overflowing bus traffic in the central town would naturally cause congestion. A decision was taken earlier to shift the bus stand to a place, more closure to the Temple. The entry and exit points were common to the existing bus stand. Naturally, the construction of the bus stand at that place would never ever ease the congestion of vehicular traffic. It would only add to the congestion of traffic movement, which congestion already exists in Tiruchendur town.

42. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that this particular site which had been chosen in S.Nos.291, 292 and 295/2 at Mattuthavani area in Keela Tiruchendur, is an opt place, only because it is close to the existing bus stand and more closer to the Temple. But however, the construction of the new bus stand in this particular place will not provide any relief or ease the traffic congestion already existing. It would only add to the traffic congestion.

43. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the decision taken to shift the site to a place which is slightly outside, had been taken owing to the pressure exerted by those who want to build commercial complexes near the new site. But the same argument can also be put against the construction of the new bus stand in S.Nos.291, 292 and 295/2 of Mattuthavani area. The existing commercial complexes and lodge owners would only benefit by construction of the bus stand in close proximity to the existing bus stand. Therefore, the claim that the decision to re-locate the site was with mala fide intention is rejected by us. Wherever a bus stand is constructed, commercial complexes will certainly mushroom.

44. The new site at S.No.312/1 at Kumarapuram, Mela Tiruchendur, is actually very close to the National Highways. An immediate connectivity is also proposed to be provided between the bus stand and the National Highways. This would certainly ease the traffic congestion in central Tiruchendur town. This is the object for which the bus stand is actually shifted. It is also seen from the counter affidavit that the existing bus stand will continue to function and buses would also be operated from that bus stand. There are certain buses which come to that particular bus stand and they would continue to do so. Further, it has been proposed to operate shuttle services from the new bus stand to the existing bus stand and the Temple. These facilities would ease the traffic congestions.

45. The footfall on festival days crosses more than a lakh. This would also indicate that there would be thousands of vehicles entering Tiruchendur town to transport the devotees who visit the Temple. This decision to shift the bus stand to a place just outside the town, not very far but just about 1.5 km away would never cause any hardship to the pilgrims who come to visit the Temple. From the place they alight in the new bus stand, they would be able to go to the existing bus stand through shuttle services. Thereafter, they can go over to the Temple, which is close by. It is also seen that substantial budget has been allocated for construction of the bus stand. There are as many as 24 bus bays which had been provided in the new bus stand. There are eight bus bays for idle buses.

46. We hold that viewed from any angle, relocating the bus stand to this particular location at Mela Tiruchendur would be more advantageous to the pilgrims and would ease the vehicular congestion, ease the traffic congestion in Tiruchendur Town and also facilitate free and easy movement of pedestrians and devotees who visit the Temple.

47. The objections relating to the alleged non compliance of Rule 245 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 would not apply, because the Government is constructing the bus stand in Government poromboke land and necessary dedicated road is being laid to ease traffic and for free movement of the buses. All issues would be addressed, when the bus stand is built. We are confident that a prudent decision had been taken.

48. It is also seen that foundational work had been practically completed. Naturally, the balance swings in favour of construction of bus stand in S.No.312/1, Kumarapuram, Mela Tiruchendur. We hold that it is a correct decision to relocate the bus stand in this particular place. It is also to be noted that bus services in the existing bus stand will not be affected. It would continue to be operated, but on a medium scale and there will be shuttle services from the new bus stand to the existing bus stand. We hold that the grievances raised by the petitioners are unfounded. The Writ Petitions have been filed more as a formality than with any real intention.

49. It had been contended that there has been no discussion with the public, as provided under Section 16 of the Tamil Nadu Infrastructure Development Act 2012, but that procedure is contemplated for publicprivate partnership infrastructure development. Such infrastructure construction is not the case on hand. The public will certainly be benefited by the choice of the present place at S.No.312/1. We hold that the grievances are misplaced. The location of the bus stand would be welcomed by all the devotees, who visit the temple. It is only for their benefit that this particular additional bus stand is proposed to be constructed. We therefore hold that the Writ Petitions are devoid of merits and the same necessarily have to be dismissed.

50. In the result, the Writ Petitions stand dismissed. The impleading application in W.M.P.(MD)No.17137 of 2026 and W.M.P.(MD)No.16970 of 2026 seeking to appoint an Advocate Commissioner are both dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, other connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.