Judgment :- The petitioner has come up with this writ petition to direct the second and third respondents to forbear the first respondent from operating his mini bus bearing Registration No.TN-28-A-5454 which is permitted to ply on the route Win Nagar to Palpannai from operating on the extended portion of the route from Palpannai to Gandhi Market. 2. The petitioner is a stage carriage operator in Thiruchirappalli town operating a stage carriage bearing Registration No.TN-45-AC-9569 on the town route No.69, namely Srirangam to Thuvakudi (via) Maingaurd Gate, Gandhi Market and BHEL. The first respondent was granted with a mini bus permit by the second respondent to ply on the route PalPannai to Win Nagar (via) Ariyamangalam. The first respondent after some time started to operate her vehicle from Palpannai to Gandhi Market so as to operate in between Gandhi Market and Win Nagar (via) Palpannai. 3. According to the petitioner, the said route is unauthorized as his permit was granted only for the route Palpannai to Win Nagar. The petitioner is affected by this act of the first respondent. Therefore, the petitioner challenged the same before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in R.P.No.44/2005 and the same is still pending. 4. The petitioner also gave a representation on 25.07.2008 to the third respondent to enquire about the operation of the mini bus by the first respondent upto Gandhi Market. The third respondent by his reply dated 18.08.2008 informed the petitioner that the first respondent is operating on the extended portion of the route in pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P(MD)No.9189 of 2007 by the order, dated 05.01.2008 and enclosed a copy of the order. 5. A perusal of the order in W.P.(MD)No.9189 of 2007 shows that this Court directed the third respondent to dispose of the representation of the first respondent dated 12.03.2007 on merits and in accordance with law within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Therefore, the action of the respondents 2 and 3 permitting the petitioner to allow the mini bus between the Gandhi Market and Win Nagar viz., Palpannai in the deviated route is illegal. Therefore, the petitioner has come out with the present writ petition. 6. Though the writ petition is of the year 2008, the respondents have not filed any counter affidavit. 7. Therefore, the petitioner has come out with the present writ petition. 6. Though the writ petition is of the year 2008, the respondents have not filed any counter affidavit. 7. Heard Mr.M.Palani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.A.C.Asai Thambi, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohideen, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 2 and 3. 8. A perusal of the reply of third respondent, dated 18.08.2008 shows that the first respondent was allowed to operate in the deviated route as per the orders of this Court made in W.P(MD)No.9189 of 2007. On the other hand, this Court did not permit the first respondent to operate in the deviated route. This Court only directed the third respondent to consider the representation of the first respondent, dated 12.03.2007 on merits. The third respondent ought to have dispose of the representation of the first respondent, dated 12.03.2007 within two weeks from the date of receipt of that order. The third respondent failed to do so. But permitted the first respondent to operate in the deviated route. Therefore, I hold that the action of the third respondent is illegal. Hence, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents 2 and 3 are directed to restrain the first respondent from operating the mini bus bearing Registration No.TN 28-A-5454 to ply on the route Win Nagar to Palpannai from operating on the extended portion of the route. The third respondent is also directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 25.07.2008. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2008 is also closed.