Disposed

G.Chidambaranathan v. The Transport Commissioner

Madras HC18 Mar 2016WP/10074/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Fiveteen similar writ petitions challenging inaction over autorickshaw permit applications were disposed of. The High Court directed the second respondents to receive and consider the applications on merits within six weeks without commenting on merits.

What did the court decide?

Directed second respondent to receive respective applications dated 01.02.2016 in Form CCPA with prescribed fees and to consider them within six weeks.

G.Chidambaranathan Vs The Transport Commissioner — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 18.03.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

¶5

W.P.Nos.10074 to 10088 of 2016

¶6

G. Chidambaranathan ...Petitioner in WP.10074 of 2016 M. Raja ...Petitioner in WP.10075 of 2016 S. Gokulakrishnan ...Petitioner in WP.10076 of 2016 K. Dhanalakshmi ...Petitioner in WP.10077 of 2016 R. Parameswaran ...Petitioner in WP.10078 of 2016 M. Selvam ...Petitioner in WP.10079 of 2016 R. Anandkumar ...Petitioner in WP.10080 of 2016 A. Sathik Basha ...Petitioner in WP.10081 of 2016 K. Sugumar ...Petitioner in WP.10082 of 2016 D. Govindaraj ...Petitioner in WP.10083 of 2016 E. Baranai ...Petitioner in WP.10084 of 2016 R. Narayanan ...Petitioner in WP.10085 of 2016 D. Ravi ...Petitioner in WP.10086 of 2016 E.Umamageswari ...Petitioner in WP.10087 of 2016 K. Suresh ...Petitioner in WP.10088 of 2016 Vs.

¶7

The Transport Commissioner, State Transport Authority, Cheapauk, Chennai – 600 005 ...1^st respondent in all the writ petitions

¶8

The Regional Transport Officer, Chennai – South, Chennai ...2^nd Respondent in W.P.10074 of 2016

¶9

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

¶10

The Regional Transport Officer, Chennai-Central, Chennai ... 2^nd respondent in WP Nos.10075, 10076, 10077, 10084, 10085 of 2016 The Regional Transport Officer, Chennai-North, Chennai ...2^nd respondent in WP.10078 of 2016 The Regional Transport Officer, Poonamallee, Chennai ...2^nd respondent in WP Nos.10079, 10080, 10082, of 2016 The Regional Transport Officer, Chennai-West, Chennai ...2^nd respondent in WP.10081 of 2016 The Regional Transport Officer, Chennai North East Chennai ...2^nd respondent in WP.10083 of 2016 The Regional Transport Officer, Chennai-North West Chennai ...2^nd respondent in WPs.10086, 10087 of 2016 The Regional Transport Officer, Tambaram, Chennai ...2^nd respondent in WP.10088 of 2016 Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue Writs of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to receive the applications of the petitioners dated 01.02.2016 in form CCPA with the prescribed fee for the grant of a Autorickshaw permit and to consider the same. For Petitioners in all : Mr.S. Govindaraman the Writ Petitions For Respondent in all : Mr.P.V. Selvakumar the Writ Petitions Additional Government Pleader

¶11

COMMON ORDER

¶12

The petitioners have filed the above writ petitions to issue writs of Mandamus, to direct the second respondent to receive the applications of the petitioners dated 01.02.2016 in form CCPA with the prescribed fee for the grant of a Autorickshaw permit and to consider the same.

¶13

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

¶14

Mr.P.V. Selvakumar, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice for the respondents and submitted that the second respondent may be directed to consider the petitioners' applications in accordance with law.

¶15

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and taking into consideration the limited prayer sought for by the petitioners, without expressing any opinion with regard to the merits of the case, I direct the second respondent to receive the respective applications of the petitioners dated 01.02.2016 in Form CCPA and the prescribed fee for the grant of Autorickshaw permit and consider the same on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶16

With this observation, all the writ petitions are
disposed of. No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CO)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
sr
To
1. The Transport Commissioner,
State Transport Authority,
Cheapauk,
Chennai – 600 005
2. The Regional Transport Officer,
Chennai – South,
Chennai
3. The Regional Transport Officer,
Chennai-Central,
Chennai
4. The Regional Transport Officer,
Chennai-North,
Chennai
5. The Regional Transport Officer,
Poonamallee,
Chennai

¶17

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

¶18

The Regional Transport Officer, Chennai-West, Chennai

¶19

The Regional Transport Officer,
Chennai North East
Chennai
8. The Regional Transport Officer,
Chennai-North West
Chennai
9. The Regional Transport Officer,
Tambaram,
Chennai
+15cc's to Mr.S. Govindaraman, Advocate, S.R.No.17407
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.17690
W.P.Nos.10074 to 10088 of 2016
KSJ(CO)
CA(22/03/2016)

¶20

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

G.Chidambaranathan v. The Transport Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Chidambaranathan v. The Transport Commissioner

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

V.Sathiyamurthy, Vs The Joint Transport

Apm Terminals Private Limited, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Shree Karthik Papers Ltd., Vs the Assistant Commissioner

M/s.Arputharaj & Radhakrishnan Vs The Deputy Commissioner of

R.Sundaramoorthy, Vs The Additional Commissioner of

Moorthy Kothandapani, Vs The Assistant Commissioner of