Essac v. The Superintendent Of Police,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 11.06.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI Essac ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.

2. The Inspector of Police, Kalakkadu Police Station, Tirunelveli.

3. R.Dhanapal ... Respondents PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to necessary action the petitioner's representation dated 02.05.2026 in accordance with law. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Murugaboopathy For Respondents : Mr.S.Arun Arockiasamy (R1 & R2) Counsel for State of TN (Crl.Side) 1/6

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed seeking for a direction to the 1st respondent to necessary action on the petitioner's representation dated 02.05.2026 in accordance with law.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is operating a stage carriage under the name and style of "Arumugam Transport" in terms of G.O.Ms.No.33, Home (Transport) Department, dated 23.01.2025, and is holding a valid permit bearing No.TN 2026 SC 0581A for the period from 24.02.2026 to 23.02.2031.

3. It was further submitted that the third respondent, though granted a licence and transport permit for a different route, has been continuously operating his vehicle through the route allotted to the petitioner, thereby causing substantial loss to the petitioner's business. The third respondent is also alleged to have obstructed the petitioner's vehicle and engaged in verbal and physical altercations with the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner lodged a complaint on 25.04.2026, for which CSR No.430 of 2026 was issued and the same is stated to be pending enquiry. Since no further action was taken on the said complaint, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 02.05.2026 2/6

requesting the respondent police to conclude the enquiry and take appropriate action. As the said representation has not evoked any response, the present writ petition has been filed.

4. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent police submitted that the representation relied upon by the petitioner has not been properly addressed to the competent authorities and that no current paper is before the respondent police. The learned Government Advocate further submitted that, on an earlier complaint lodged by the petitioner, an enquiry was conducted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, during which both parties had undertaken to ply their respective vehicles only through the routes permitted to them.

5. Heard the learned counsel on either sides and carefully perused the materials available on record. Considering the nature of the order proposed to be passed in this petition, notice to him is dispensed with.

6. In view of the submission made by the learned Government Advocate that no current paper is pending before the respondent police, the petitioner is directed to submit a fresh representation in person before the second respondent 3/6

forthwith. On receipt of such representation, the second respondent police shall issue summons to the petitioner as well as the third respondent under Section 64 of the BNSS, conduct a discreet enquiry, and take appropriate action in accordance with law and make it clear to the 3rd respondent that he shall strictly adhere to the route for which permit has been granted and shall not interfere with or disturb the lawful business operations of the petitioner's transport service.

7. With the above direction, this writ petition stands allowed. 11.06.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No sm 4/6

TO:-

1. The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.

2. The Inspector of Police, Kalakkadu Police Station, Tirunelveli.

3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

5/6

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

Sm Order made in Dated 11.06.2026 6/6