Dismissed

K. Vairam, v. the District Collector

Madras HC10 Mar 2015WP(MD)/3339/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition under Article 226 sought a direction to respondents to consider a representation regarding a private bus service plying through a remote village. The Court held that it is the prerogative of the third-party operator to ply as per their government permit and dismissed the petition as not maintainable.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as not maintainable; no direction to order the private bus to ply the requested route.

K. Vairam, Vs the District Collector — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 10.03.2015

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN and

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.S.RAVI

¶7

W.P(MD)No.3339 of 2015

K.Vairavan

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector, Thanjavur District, Thanjavur.

¶12

2.The District Colletor, Pudukottai District, Pudukottai.

¶13

3.The Regional Transport Officer, O/o.The Regional Transport Office, Pudukottai,

¶14

Pudukottai District. ... Respondents

¶15

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 09.01.2015 and pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case and thus render justice.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Arun Jayatram

¶17

For Respondents : Mr.A.K.Baskarapandian Special Government Pleader.

¶18

ORDER

¶19

(Order of the Court was made by S.TAMILVANAN,J)

¶20

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶21

2.The relief sought for in the writ petition is to direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 09.01.2015 and pass appropriate orders.

¶22

3.The copy of the representation is available at page No.1 of the typed set of papers. It is a letter written by the petitioner herein to the first respondent making request to direct ARK a private bus service to ply through Kuruvikarambai village and proceed to the testination.

¶23

4.Learned Special Government Pleader submits that it is a private bus and they got bus permit, licence and there is no violation of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ any statutory provision, hence this writ petition is not legally sustainable.

¶24

¶25

5.On the aforesaid circumstances, the respondents cannot seek an

¶26

order directing the private bus transport to ply through the remote Kuruvikarambai village. We are of the view that it is a prerogative of the third party who is not a party in the writ petition to ply as per the permit obtained from the Government. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable.

¶27

6.In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶28

Sd/Assistant Registrar(T&P) /True Copy/ Sub- Assistant Registrar

¶29

To 1.The District Collector, Thanjavur District, Thanjavur. 2.The District Colletor, Pudukottai District, Pudukottai. 3.The Regional Transport Officer, O/o.The Regional Transport Office, Pudukottai, Pudukottai District. +1cc to Special Government Pleader in SR.No. 12076 sm:30.03.2015:2P/5C W.P(MD)No.3339 of 2015 10.03.2015

¶30

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

K. Vairam, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Vairam, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N. Rajendran, S/O. Nataraj, Vs the District Collector

The District Appropriate Vs Dr.Ar.Santhini

Neervala Pathukappu Matrum Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

L.Jagannathan, Vs the District Collector

V.Parvathy Velpandian Vs the District Collector

N. Murugan Vs the Commissioner of Municipal