Successful trial extension of public bus service ordered to continue permanently for local commuters.

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution directing the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation to extend the existing bus services operating between Kariyapatti and Kundukulam up to Koovarkulam Vinayagar Temple, or alternatively to provide a direct service from Kariyapatti to Koovarkulam Village, based on his representation dated 18.06.2026.

The Transport Corporation stated that the proposed extension would involve an additional distance of approximately 1.5 kilometres, that the roads were narrow, and that administrative sanction would be required.

On 25.08.2026, the High Court directed the respondents to operate the bus route up to Koovarkulam Vinayagar Temple once in the morning and once in the evening, from 31.08.2026 to 04.09.2026, on a trial and temporary basis, and to submit a report regarding the feasibility of making the arrangement permanent.

The subsequent report confirmed that the service had been operated to accommodate school students during morning and evening timings.

Whether the respondents should be directed to extend the existing Kariyapatti–Kundukulam bus service up to Koovarkulam Vinayagar Temple, or provide a direct bus service to Koovarkulam Village.

Whether the trial bus service directed by the Court could be continued as a permanent arrangement in light of the Transport Corporation’s report.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue an appropriate direction concerning the availability of public transport services.

The relevant principle was that a writ of mandamus may be issued to require a public authority or public-sector transport corporation to consider and implement a public service arrangement within the scope of its administrative functions.

The Court also relied on the practical and administrative assessment of the Transport Corporation concerning route feasibility, road conditions, and operational requirements.

No statutory provision or judicial precedent was expressly relied upon in the judgment.

The Court initially recognised that the proposed route extension involved practical difficulties, including narrow roads, an additional distance of 1.5 kilometres, and the need for administrative sanction.

Instead of immediately ordering a permanent route alteration, it adopted a temporary trial arrangement to assess operational feasibility and public utility, particularly for school students.

After considering the respondents’ report that the buses had successfully operated in the morning and evening to serve the students, the Court concluded that the arrangement was workable and ought to continue permanently.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of, with no order as to costs.