CHENNAI: The Madras High Court questioned whether a private bus operator licensed only in a particular area could challenge a scheme applicable across Tamil Nadu, observing that the plea amounted to ‘private’ interest litigation.

N Kalamani, a stage carriage operator from Erode, has filed a writ petition before the Madras High Court challenging the expansion of the free bus travel scheme for women and transwomen.

In her plea, she stated that the DMK government had introduced the ‘Vidiyal Payanam’ Zero-Ticket Bus Travel (ZTBT) Scheme for women and transwomen. Chief Minister C Joseph Vijay announced in the State Assembly on August 24 that it would be expanded to ordinary-fare buses in mofussil and hilly areas under the name ‘Vetri Payanam’, with effect from October 2, at an estimated annual expenditure of around Rs 6,000 crore.

She further submitted that the State government had announced an annual subsidy grant of Rs 1,200 crore to State transport corporations, based on the assumption that women contribute 40% of the Rs 3,000 crore annual ticket revenue of city and town buses. She contended that if the scheme was introduced, private-sector operators may not find passengers in their vehicles, and that no GO had been issued following the announcement made in the Assembly.

The petitioner sought an order or direction in the nature of a writ, declaring the August 24 communication of the Tamil Nadu Department of Information and Public Relations as unconstitutional, ultra vires and void, and for passing such further or other orders.

When the matter came up for hearing, a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan were disinclined to entertain the plea, questioning how an operator licensed only in a particular area could challenge a scheme applicable across Tamil Nadu. “You are an operator only in a particular area. How can you challenge the scheme which is applicable in the entire Tamil Nadu? You can challenge only that portion which affects you. This is private interest litigation,” the Bench orally remarked.

The court also noted that the petitioner had challenged the CM’s Assembly announcement instead of the GO implementing the scheme, and permitted her to withdraw the plea and work out her remedy in accordance with the law.