(Prayer: Calling for the records of the 1st Respondent, pertaining to the proceedings made in R.No.18466 /A3/ 2023, dated 24.11.2025 and quash the same.)

1. In the light of the order that I am going to pass, notice to the 2nd respondent is dispensed with.

2. I heard Mr.R.Natesan for the petitioner and Mr.M.Shajahan for the 1st respondent.

3. The petitioner is a Stage Carriage Operator. He is operating a vehicle on the route from Salem to Thiruchengode via Rasipuram, Namakkal, Kabilamalai, Jadarapalayam, Zamin Ellampillai and Chittalandur. He challenges the notice that has been issued by the 1st respondent calling upon him to appear before him for a timing conference. The plea of Mr.Natesan is that for holding such a conference is contrary to the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Suganthi -vs- M.Palanivelu and Others, W.A. No. 1661 of 2000 dated 26.09.2006.

4. Mr.Natesan urges that the Division Bench had held that if the records of the vehicle granting variations had not been produced within a period of four(4) months from the date of such grant, the variation is deemed to have been cancelled or revoked. He points out that the order of the STAT is dated 16.11.1987 and an attempting to implement the said order, after the lapse of 38 years, is wholly untenable.

5. Mr.M.Shajahan points out that the said timing conference in itself has been called, pursuant to an order of this Court in W.P. No. 13062 of 2023 dated 01.06.2023. He pleads that while this Court has directed implementing of the order, challenge to the same should not be entertained.

6. I have carefully considered the submission of both sides and have gone through the records.

7. The 2nd respondent herein is also a Stage Carriage Operator. He is plying on the route from Namakkal to Salem via Senthamangalam and Rasipuram. An order had been passed by the STAT in Appeal No. 852 of 1985 on 16.11.1987 granting certain variations to the 2nd respondent’s permit.

8. It s on the strength of this order that the 2nd respondent seems to have moved two writ petitions in W.P. No. 8147 of 2013 and 13062 of 2023. These writ petitions have been disposed on 22.07.2013 and 01.06.2023 respectively.

9. I find considerable force in the submission of Mr.M.Shajahan that if I were to entertain this writ petition and grant an interim order, I would be indirectly interfering with the 1st respondent implementing a direction given by the another Hon’ble Judge.

10. If the writ petitioner is of the view that the application filed by the 2nd respondent seeking variations is untenable, then his remedy is to bring it to the notice of the 1st respondent, the appropriate provisions on which he urges maintainability as well as the judgment of the Division Bench referred to above.

11. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. WMP if any closed.

12. The petitioner is entitled to raise the specific issue of maintainability of the application seeking variation of the permit before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent shall look into the judgment in Suganthi -vs- M.Palanivelu and Others in W.A. No. 1661 of 2000 dated 26.09.2006. He shall while passing an order considering the objection of the petitioner on the maintainability, and thereafter, proceed onto merits.

13. Mr.M.Shajahan shall bring it to the notice of the 1st respondent regarding the contents of the order. The 1st respondent shall act on a web copy of this order and shall not await for a certified copy.