(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to inspect the route between the route Srivilliputhur Thevar Statue to Perumal Thevanpatti, Shenbaga Thoppu to Kothankulam Othaveedu and Shenbaa Thoppu to K Thottiapatti Cross and directing the respondents to not to grant any new permit to the above said routes by considering the petitioner’s representation dated 23.02.2026.)

1. The writ petition is filed for a Mandamus directing the respondents to inspect the route between Srivilliputhur Thevar Statue and Perumal Thevanpatti, Shenbaga Thoppu and Kothankulam Othaveedu and also Shenbaa Thoppu and K.Thottiapatti Cross by considering the petitioner’s representation dated 23.02.2026.

2. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perusing the material records of the case, it is contended that the petitioner owns four minibuses and he is operating in the above three routes under the existing scheme. When the new scheme is framed, by the representation, the petitioner had prayed firstly to inspect and approve the route, secondly, to permit the petitioner to migrate to the new scheme and thirdly, to object to granting a permit to any other person in the route. When the same is not done, the petitioner has approached this Court.

3. When the matter came up for hearing, the learned Government Advocate would produce a Gazette-Extraordinary No.4, dated 13.03.2026, in which a notification dated 12.03.2026 by the Regional Transport Authority, Virudhunagar, is published.

4. It is the contention of the Government Advocate that already, due inspection of the route has been undertaken. During the inspection, the petitioner was also present and now the routes are identified and published in the Gazette. They have identified three lengths as 6.8 km, 13.0 km and 19.8 km and they have also found that 34% of the route is served and the remaining 66% is unserved. Further applications for migration as well as grant of permits for any new persons will be considered in accordance with law by the first respondent/Regional Transport Authority.

5. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case.

6. The first limb of the prayer to inspect the route is already undertaken and the Gazette is now published. If the petitioner is aggrieved of the Gazette in the sense that there is any discrepancy or error according to her in the route, it will be open for her to take such steps in the manner known to law as against the Gazette publication.

7. If the petitioner seeks to migrate as per the route notified and for the grant of permit to her, within two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of the web copy of this order, the petitioner shall make a fresh application along with a copy of this order to permit her to migrate, with reference to any or all of the routes to the first respondent accompanied with such fees as may be prescribed. The same shall be considered in accordance with the law by the first respondent.

8. If the petitioner also objects to grant of permit to any other person except the petitioner, such an objection shall also be filed within two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of web copy of this order along with a copy of this order and the same shall also be considered and speaking orders be passed. As and when the objections as well as the application are filed, the same shall be dealt with as expeditiously as possible and let final orders be passed within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of filing of the application/objections.

9. It is made clear that while deciding the issues, opportunity of personal hearing shall be granted to the petitioner.

10. With the above observations and directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.