Judgment :- M. Venugopal, J. In W.A.Nos.1104,777 and 1103 of 2009, the issue that crops up for consideration before us is as to whether the learned Single Judge was right while applying G.O.Ms.No.278 Home(Transport -VI) Department dated 22.3.2001 in issuing directions to the respondent/appellant to re-present the returned papers within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of the order dated 12.11.2008 in W.P.No.26744 of 2008,20.11.2008 in W.P.No.27656 of 2008 and 25.11.2008 in W.P.No.28059 of 2008 respectively along with the prescribed fee and on such re-presentation, the appellant/respondent was directed to receive the same and pass appropriate orders granting permit. In W.A.Nos.1110 of 2009 and 1111 of 2009 to consider the representations of the petitioners dated 3.10.2008 and pass appropriate orders. 2. The respondents/petitioners filed applications on 30.9.2008,8.10.2008,1.10.2008,3.10.2008 and 3.10.2008 respectively for granting a share auto permit to ply Tirupur Municipal Corporation Limits and upto 30 km radius, where the town buses are allowed to ply were mainly returned on the ground that the State Government has not issued any order permitting the share auto to run in the Tirupur District and that their applications will be considered after obtaining necessary orders from the Government. The Tirupur District (after reorganisation of Coimbatore and Erode Districts) was constituted as a new District by G.O.Ms.No.617 Revenue RA1 (1) Department dated 24.10.2008. The petitioners filed writ petitions viz., W.P.Nos.26744 of 2008,27656 of 2008,28059 of 2008,27906 of 2008 and 27907 of 2008 respectively and the learned Single Judge while passing orders in 26744 of 2008,27656 of 2008 and 28059 of 2008 has observed that the Government, while, granting permit to three wheelers with five seats to ply as autorickshaw in Chennai other Districts, by G.O.Ms.No.288 Home (Transport-VI)Department dated 22.3.2001 has permitted 100 additional auto permits for five seater autos in Chennai City and 50 each for other Regional Transport Officers in the District Headquarters. The operative portion of G.O. is as follows: " The Government have examined the proposal of Transport Commissioner. They consider that as far as Chennai City is concerned, it would be sufficient if another 100 five Seater Autos are permitted instead of permitting 50 additional autos for each Regional Transport Officer in Chennai City. However, in respect of District headquarters, 50 five seater Autos can be permitted as recommended by Transport Commissioner. They consider that as far as Chennai City is concerned, it would be sufficient if another 100 five Seater Autos are permitted instead of permitting 50 additional autos for each Regional Transport Officer in Chennai City. However, in respect of District headquarters, 50 five seater Autos can be permitted as recommended by Transport Commissioner. Accordingly, the Government direct that 100 additional auto permits for 5 seater autos in Chennai City as 50 each for other Regional Transport Officers in district headquarters be allowed. The Transport Commissioner is requested to take suitable action accordingly. The learned Single Judge has opined that the said Government Order is of general in nature and there is no necessity for the appellant/respondent to presume that the Government should pass a specific order for the purpose of plying share autos in Tirupur District which was newly constituted as per G.O.Ms.No.617, Revenue (RA1(1) Department dated 24.10.2008 and as per annexure-1 to the said Government Order, Tiruppur District was constituted with so many areas as visualised therein and more over, the existing G.O.Ms.NO.277 Home(Tpt.VI) Department of Government of Tamil Nadu dated 22.3.2001 itself was sufficient for the newly constituted District, however, subject to the said Government Order,until and unless the said Government Order is modified and in that view of the matter has permitted the respondents/petitioners to represent the returned papers within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order along with prescribed fees and on such representation of the papers, the appellant/respondent was directed to receive the same and pass appropriate orders granting permit , no rejecting the application on the same ground and if there were no legal impediments and the such order was passed within a period of four weeks thereafter. In W.P.Nos.27906 of 2008 and 27907 of 2008 the learned Single Judge has directed the appellant/respondent to consider the representations of the petitioners and to dispose of the same in any event within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 3. In W.P.Nos.27906 of 2008 and 27907 of 2008 the learned Single Judge has directed the appellant/respondent to consider the representations of the petitioners and to dispose of the same in any event within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 3. The learned Special Government Pleader urges before this Court that the learned Single Judge erred in observing that the Government need not pass separate orders in respect of Tirupur District which was newly constituted and G.O.Ms.No.277 Home (Transport-VI) Department dated 22.3.2001 is specific in regard to the issue of autorickshaw permit to run in the district and Chennai City and the said ingredients of Government Order cannot be extended to newly formed District as and when constituted. Moreover, the respondent/petitioner do not have any manner of right to project the applications for grant of share auto permit and also that Tirupur District was constituted as a new District as per G.O.Ms.No.617 Revenue RA1(1) Department dated 24.10.2008 and therefore the writ petitions filed by the respondents/petitioners are not maintainable in law besides being an otiose one. 4. Contending contra, the learned counsel for the respondents/petitioners submits that the direction of the learned Single Judge in the writ petitions in permitting them to represent the returned papers within a prescribed time along with the prescribed fees and further direction given to the petitioners to re-present the papers and with further direction to the appellant/respondent to pass appropriate orders granting permit etc cannot be found fault with because of the fact that after submission of the respective applications , on 24.10.2008 Tirupur District was formed as per G.O.Ms.No.617 Revenue RA1(1) Department and therefore the said order may not interfered with by this Court in appeal. 5. 5. At this stage, the learned counsel for the respondents/petitioners invited the attention of this Court to the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.1660 and 1661 of 2009 dated 20.11.2009(arising out of the impugned common order dated 27.7.2009 in W.P.Nos.14333 of 2009 and 14334 of 2009 which directed the appellant/State to receive applications preferred by the respective petitioners dated 23.1.2009 and 27.1.2009 respectively and to consider their cases for grant of two mini stage carriage permits to each of the writ petitioners to ply on the route Veerapandi to Tirupur Old Bus Stand and to play on the route K.Chettipalayam to Tirupur Old Bus Stand) wherein this Court at paragraph 5 as among other things passed the following order: " The District of Coimbatore consisted of Tirupur Sub-Division. For the whole area of Coimbatore District, including the Sub Division/Town of Tirupur, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.1532,dated 17.11.1999, giving certain guidelines to issue mini stage carriage permits. After bifurcation of the erstwhile District of Coimbatore, carving out Tirupur as a separate District, if the State Government has not issued any fresh guidelines for the newly created District of Tirupur, we are of the view that the earlier guidelines contained in G.O. dated 17.11.1999 will be applicable for the said area, as it was in vogue before bifurcation, till the new guidelines are issued by the State. and submits that the said Judgment will squarely apply to the facts of the present case. 6. Added further, the learned counsel for the respondents/petitioners submits that the appellant has no locus standi to file the present writ appeals and in support of the said contention, cites the decision of this Court in The Regional Transport Authority, Namakkal Region-v-The State Transport I.L.R.(1194) II MAD 442 at paragraph 29 wherein it is among other things held that . . . . . . . that writ petitions are liable to be dismissed on the ground that no right vested in the petitioner has been infringed or prejudiced or adversely affected as a direct consequence of the order impugned by him and as such, he was not an aggrieved person having a locus standi in the matter. 7. . . . . . . that writ petitions are liable to be dismissed on the ground that no right vested in the petitioner has been infringed or prejudiced or adversely affected as a direct consequence of the order impugned by him and as such, he was not an aggrieved person having a locus standi in the matter. 7. Be that as it may, without going into the merits of the matter and taking into account of the fact that the prayer in the writ petitions is only to receive the application of the respondents/ petitioners submitted on different dates for the grant of five seater share auto permit and to consider the same by the appellant/respondent, we are of the considered view that even though on the date of applications submitted by the respondents/petitioners, Tirupur District was not formed and the same was formed subsequently as per G.O.Ms.No.617 Revenue RA1(1) Department dated 24.10.2008, the order of the learned Single Judge in the writ petitions permitting the respondents/petitioners to re-present the returned papers to the appellant/respondent etc and giving direction to consider and pass appropriate orders in granting permit within a period of four weeks thereafter looking at any point of view does not suffer from any material irregularity or patent illegality and suffice it for us to mention that we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge and viewed in that perspective the writ appeals fail. 8. In the result, these writ appeals are dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed.