The Madras High Court has dismissed a petition seeking an interim stay on Tamil Nadu’s ‘Vettri Payanam’ free bus travel scheme for women, after the petitioner withdrew the case during the hearing on October 5.
The petition was filed by Kalamani, a private bus owner from Erode district. The petitioner argued that the Tamil Nadu government had not accepted private bus owners’ demand for compensation and for extending the free travel scheme to privately operated buses. The petition also claimed that no government order had been issued for the scheme and sought a declaration that the programme was unconstitutional.
The scheme allows women to travel free of charge on government buses in Tamil Nadu. According to the report, Chief Minister Vijay launched the programme on October 2 after announcing it in the state legislative assembly under Rule 110. The scheme has been expanded for implementation across Tamil Nadu’s government bus network.
The case was heard by a bench comprising Chief Justice S.A. Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murughan. During the hearing, the judges questioned how a petitioner holding permission to operate buses on only two routes could challenge a government decision applicable across the state.
The bench observed that the petitioner could contest the decision only in relation to the routes on which the private buses operated. It also noted that the petition challenged the legislative assembly announcement made under Rule 110 rather than a specific government order. The court permitted the petitioner to pursue an appropriate legal remedy in accordance with law.
The judges further said that the matter could not be treated as a public interest litigation. Following the withdrawal of the petition, the court dismissed it. The dismissal means the interim stay sought by the private bus operator will not be granted through this petition.
The case highlights the institutional divide between Tamil Nadu’s government bus services and privately operated routes. The petitioner’s demand for compensation and extension of the benefit to private buses places the financial and operational burden of a universal public transport concession at the centre of the dispute. The court’s observations also limit the scope of the present challenge to the petitioner’s authorised routes rather than the statewide policy.
The order does not, as reported, decide the broader questions raised by private operators regarding compensation, the absence of a government order cited in the petition, or the constitutional validity of the scheme. The petitioner has been permitted to seek a legal remedy concerning the relevant bus routes in accordance with law.
