Madurai Bench Sets Aside Mini-Bus Permit Cancellations, Remands After Authority Failed To Explain Rejection Or Address Modification Request

In W.P.(MD) Nos. 21665 to 21667 of 2026, they challenged the Regional Transport Authority’s orders dated 20 July 2026, arguing that their written submissions had not been properly considered.

The Authority relied on a route length of 25.6 kilometres, exceeding the 25-kilometre threshold, and a served sector of 13 kilometres, said to exceed the 35% limit.

The petitioners’ written statement included an explanation concerning the served-sector calculation and referred to an application dated 25 May 2026 seeking modification under Section 80(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Authority’s orders stated that the petitioners’ explanations were “unsatisfactory and untenable,” but did not set out reasons for that conclusion or address the modification request.

W.P.(MD) Nos. 12677 and 12678 of 2026 challenged related orders of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal dated 16 April 2026.

Section 80(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, was cited in connection with the petitioners’ request for modification, but the Court did not interpret that provision.

The New Comprehensive Mini Bus Scheme 2024 and its route-length and served-sector limits were referred to in the Authority’s decision and the parties’ submissions.

The Court applied the principle that an administrative decision must disclose intelligible reasons for rejecting material explanations and must address a relevant request before it; no judicial precedents were cited.

Although the Authority recorded that the petitioners’ explanations were unsatisfactory and untenable, the orders did not reveal why those explanations had been rejected.

The Authority also failed to deal with the modification request under Section 80(3). The Court therefore found the decision-making process flawed and held that reconsideration was necessary, without deciding the merits of the route-length or served-sector dispute.

The Authority was directed to provide the petitioners and the third respondent a reasonable opportunity and issue fresh orders within three months of receiving the order.

W.P.(MD) Nos. 12677 and 12678 of 2026 were dismissed as infructuous; there was no order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.