Remanded

Mr.M. Jayakumar, v. the Regional Transport

Madras HC18 Feb 2015WP(MD)/2080/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought writ directives for action against a bus operator for permit violations and scheme breach. High Court directed the Regional Transport Authority to consider pending representations and pass orders after hearing the operator within four weeks, leaving merits untouched.

What did the court decide?

Directs the first respondent to consider representations of petitioners dated 08.01.2015 and pass orders on merits within four weeks after hearing the third respondent.

Mr.M. Jayakumar, Vs the Regional Transport — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 18.02.2015

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU

¶6

W.P.(MD)Nos.2080 & 2165 of 2015 and M.P.(MD).Nos.1 & 1 of 2015

¶7

M.Jayakumar ... Petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.2080/2015 A.Satheesh ... Petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.2165/2015

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Regional Transport Authority, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

¶10

2.The Secretary, The Regional Transport Authority, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

¶11

3.V.Premsubburaj ... Respondents in both the writ petitions

¶12

COMMON PRAYER : Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to take appropriate action as against the third respondent for operating his vehicle in violation of the permit conditions and for operating in excess of the served sector distance as contemplated under the Modified Area Approved Scheme in respect of Virudhunagar District, dated 18.11.1999 from Agambadiyar Mahal to Agambadiyar Mahal via VNR Road, Old Bus-stand, Sivan Koil and Murugan Koil and from Aruppukottai Nadar Sivan Koil to Aruppukottai Nadar Sivan Koil via Murugan temple, Virudhunagar Road, Old Bus-stand area and Nadarpettai, and respectively.

¶13

For petitioners in both the W.Ps. : Mr.M.Palani

¶14

For respondents 1 & 2 : Mr.S.Kumar, in both the W.Ps. Addl. Government Pleader

¶15

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

¶16

For 3rd respondent in both the W.Ps. : Mr.D.Anbarasu

¶17

¶18

COMMON ORDER

¶19

In both the writ petitions, the respective writ petitioner is seeking for a direction to the second respondent to take appropriate action against the third respondent for operating his vehicle in violation of the permit condition and for operating in excess of the served sector distance, as contemplated under the Modified Area Approved Scheme, dated 18.11.1999, in respect of Virudhunagar District.

¶20

2.Mr.S.Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the first and second respondents in both the writ petitions. Mr.D.Anbarasu, learned counsel takes notice for the third respondent in both the writ petitions.

¶21

3.It is seen that the petitioners are having grievance against the third respondent by making an allegation that he is running his mini buses in violation of permit condition. It is also seen that the petitioners in both the writ petitions have already made representations before the competent authority viz., Regional Transport Authority, Virudhunagar District, who is the first respondent in both the writ petitions. Such representations are still pending and not yet disposed of.

¶22

4.Considering the fact that it is for the first respondent to consider the grievance of the petitioners in each of the matter also by hearing the third respondent, this Court, without expressing any view on the merits of the contentions raised by the respective parties, only directs the first respondent to consider the representations of the respective petitioner dated 08.01.2015 and pass orders on the same on merits and in accordance with law, after hearing the third respondent as well. Such exercise shall be done by the first respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

Assistant Registrar(RTI)

¶25

/True Copy/

¶26

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶27

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

¶28

¶29

¶30

1.The Regional Transport Authority,Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

¶31

2.The Secretary, The Regional Transport Authority, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

¶32

+4ccs to Mr.D.Anbarasu, Advocate, in SR. No.7970,7971 & 8042. +2ccs to Mr.M.Palani, Advocate, in SR. No.7857 & 7858. +1cc to Special Government Pleader, in SR No.7789 & 7790.

¶33

W.P.(MD)Nos.2080 & 2165 of 2015

¶34

18.02.2015

¶35

gcg

¶36

msm 03.03.2015 p3/10c

¶37

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

Mr.M. Jayakumar, v. the Regional Transport

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.M. Jayakumar, v. the Regional Transport

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

G.Vasantha Vs the District Forest Officer

G.Pandi, S/O a. Gurunathan, Vs National Council for Coopera-

Mayil Rajaperumal, Vs Tamil Nadu Public Service

D.Mathivanan Vs the Regional Transport

G. Pandiarajan, Vs the Chairman

T.Vaikundamani, Vs the Director