Disposed

M. Sheik Mansoor, v. the District Collector /

Madras HC3 Mar 2014WP(MD)/3391/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitions filed by Mini Bus operators challenging prevention of their bus operations on specific routes. The Court directed the District Collector to consider the petitioners' representations within three weeks before disposing of the matter on merits, keeping no view on the merits yet.

What did the court decide?

Directed the first respondent to consider the petitioners' representations dated 25.01.2014 and pass appropriate orders within three weeks without expressing any view on the merits.

M. Sheik Mansoor, Vs the District Collector / — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 03.03.2014

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRA BAABU

¶6

W.P.(MD) Nos.3391, 3392, 3393 & 3394 of 2014 and M.P.(MD) Nos.1, 1, 1 & 1 of 2014 M.Sheik Mansoor ...Petitioner in WP.No.3391/2014 I.Zaid (minor) rep.by his mother I.Parveen Banu ...Petitioner in WP.No.3392/2014 A.Aboobakker ...Petitioner in WP.No.3393/2014 I.Jaffir (minor) rep.by his mother I.Parveen Banu ...Petitioner in WP.No.3394/2014 Vs.

¶7

1.The District Collector/ The Regional Transport Authority Madurai, Madurai District

¶8

2.The Regional Transport Officer Madurai North, Madurai District

¶9

3.The Commissioner Madurai Corporation, Madurai ... Respondents in all W.Ps

¶10

Prayer (in W.P.(MD) No.3391 of 2014): Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus, forbearing the respondents from preventing the operation of the petitioner's Mini Bus bearing registration No.TN59 M0770 or any other subsequently replaced bus plying on the route from Tamukkam to Veerapandi.

¶11

Prayer (in W.P.(MD) No.3392 of 2014): Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus, forbearing the respondents from preventing the operation of the petitioner's Mini Bus bearing registration No.TN59 Q9495 or any other subsequently replaced bus plying on the route from Mattuthavani Bus Stand to Alanganallur.

¶12

Prayer (in W.P.(MD) No.3393 of 2014): Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus, forbearing the respondents from preventing the operation of the petitioner's Mini Bus bearing registration No.TN59 P9253 or any other subsequently replaced bus plying on the route from Court (West) to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ R.M.S.Colony, Shanthi Nagar, Venkateswara Lathe Works (Near Koodal Nagar Gate).

¶13

¶14

Prayer (in W.P.(MD) No.3394 of 2014): Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus, forbearing the respondents from preventing the operation of the petitioner's Mini Bus bearing registration No.TN59 F0117 or any other subsequently replaced bus plying on the route from Mattuthavani Bus Stand to Alanganallur.

¶15

For Petitioners : Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar (in all W.Ps) For Respondents : Mr.R.Anandraj (in all W.Ps) Government Advocate for R1 & R2 Mr.J.Gunaseelan Muthiah Standing Counsel for Madurai Corporation for R3

¶16

Mr.R.Anandraj, learned Government Advocate, takes notice for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.J.Gunaseelan Muthiah, learned Standing Counsel for Madurai Corporation, takes notice for the third respondent in all the writ petitions. With the consent of either side, all these Writ Petitions are taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. Since the issue involved in all the writ petitions are identical and the prayer sought for are also similar, all these writ petitions were heard together and are disposed of by this common Order.

¶17

The petitioners seek for issuance of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from preventing the operation of their Mini Bus bearing registration Nos.TN59 M0770, TN59 Q9495, TN59 P9253 and TN59 F0117 or any other subsequently replaced buses plying on the route as stated supra.

¶18

The petitioners are Mini Bus operators and they seek some deviation of the original route. When it was objected to by the respondents, they have come forward with the present writ petitions, however, the petitioners made representations dated 25.01.2014, before the respondents herein, seeking for permission to deviate the original route.

¶19

Since the petitioners have already approached the respondents, by way of their individual representations dated 25.01.2014, this Court is of the view that the prayer sought for in all these writ petitions cannot be granted at this stage except by directing the first respondent to consider their representations dated 25.01.2014.

¶20

Accordingly, the first respondent is directed to consider the petitioners' representations dated 25.01.2014 and pass appropriate orders on the same on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. Further, it is made clear that this Court is not expressing any view on the merits and contentions of the writ petitions.

¶21

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶22

¶23

With the above direction, all these Writ Petitions are disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.

¶24

Krk Sd/Assistant Registrar[Crl side] /True copy/

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

To:

¶27

1.The District Collector/ The Regional Transport Authority Madurai, Madurai District 2.The Regional Transport Officer Madurai North, Madurai District 3.The Commissioner Madurai Corporation, Madurai.

¶28

W.P.(MD) Nos.3391, 3392, 3393 & 3394 of 2014 Dated:03.03.2014

¶29

3P/4C RPB 12.03.2014

¶30

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M. Sheik Mansoor, v. the District Collector /

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Sheik Mansoor, v. the District Collector /

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D.B.Prakashchand Jain Vs the Inspector General of

T.Rajasekar Vs the Commissioner

N.Subramaniam, Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu

G. Arumaidurai Vs the District Manager

T. Sankar Vs the Senior Regional Manager

Annakili Vs the District Collector