Partly allowed

D.Mathivanan v. the Regional Transport

Madras HC18 Feb 2015WP(MD)/2155/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench dismissed the Writ Petition seeking directions to the Regional Transport Authority to implement an order. The court directed the Authority to consider a pending grievance regarding a mini-bus permit violation, hear the operator, and pass orders within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directs the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and pass orders after hearing the third respondent within four weeks.

D.Mathivanan 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)No.2155 of 2015 and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2015

D.Mathivanan

... Petitioner

Vs.

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

¶11

Virudhunagar District.

¶12

2.The Regional Transport Officer, Regional Transport Office, Virudhunagar,

¶13

Virudhunagar District.

¶14

3.V.Premsubburaj ... Respondents

¶15

PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to implement the order vide his proceedings in Se.Mu.Aa.No.9561/A5/2001, dated 23.03.2011, by considering the representation made by the petitioner dated 15.12.2014 in accordance with law within a stipulated time.

¶16

For petitioner : Mr.A.Velan for M/s.Ajmal Associates

¶17

For respondents 1 & 2 : Mr.S.Kumar, Addl. Government Pleader

¶18

For 3rd respondent : Mr.D.Anbarasu

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner seeks for a direction to the first respondent to implement the order vide his proceedings in Se.Mu.Aa.No.9561/A5/2011, dated 23.03.2001, by considering the representation made by the petitioner, dated 15.12.2014, in accordance with law, within a stipulated time. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶21

¶22

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

¶23

3.It is seen that the petitioner is having grievance

¶24

against the third respondent by making an allegation that he is running his mini bus in violation of permit condition. It is also seen that the petitioner has already made a representation before the competent authority viz., Regional Transport Authority, Virudhunagar District, who is the first respondent. Such representation is still pending and not yet disposed of.

¶25

4.Considering the fact that it is for the first respondent to consider the grievance of the petitioner also by hearing the third respondent, this Court, without expressing any view on the merits of the contentions raised by the parties, only directs the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 15.12.2014 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 petition is closed.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

Assistant Registrar(RTI)

¶28

/True Copy/

¶29

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶30

¶31

1.The Regional Transport Authority,

¶32

Regional Transport Office, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District.

¶33

2.The Regional Transport Officer,

¶34

Regional Transport Office, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District.

¶35

+2ccs to Mr.D.Anbarasu, Advocate, in SR. No.7969 & 8044.

¶36

+1cc to Special Government Pleader, in SR No.8016.

¶37

W.P.(MD)No.2155 of 2015

¶38

18.02.2015

¶39

gcg msm 03.03.2015 p2/6c

¶40

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

D.Mathivanan v. the Regional Transport

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Mathivanan 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

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

Mr.M. Jayakumar, Vs the Regional Transport

G. Pandiarajan, Vs the Chairman

T.Vaikundamani, Vs the Director