Disposed

R.Vasudevan v. The Transport Commissioner

Madras HC21 Mar 2016WP/10313/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge order in writ petitions under Article 226 directing the Regional Transport Officer to receive applications for Autorickshaw permits filed on 18.01.2016 in Form CCPA, along with prescribed fees, and to consider them on merits within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to second respondent to receive applications dated 18.01.2016 in Form CCPA with prescribed fee and consider on merits within six weeks.

R.Vasudevan Vs The Transport Commissioner — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 21.03.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

¶5

W.P.Nos.10313 to 10322 of 2016

¶6

R.Vasudevan ... Petitioner in W.P.10313 of 2016 M.Gopi ... Petitioner in W.P.10314 of 2016 P.Saraswathi ... Petitioner in W.P.10315 of 2016 S.Naresh Babu ... Petitioner in W.P.10316 of 2016 S.Damodaran ... Petitioner in W.P.10317 of 2016 R.Sathiyamoorthy ... Petitioner in W.P.10318 of 2016 B.Kavitha ... Petitioner in W.P.10319 of 2016 K.Jamuna ... Petitioner in W.P.10320 of 2016 M.Venkatesan ... Petitioner in W.P.10321 of 2016 R.Kuppusamy ... Petitioner in W.P.10322 of 2016

¶7

Vs. The Transport Commissioner, State Transport Authority, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005 ...1st Respondent in all WPs The Regional Transport Officer, Tambaram, Chennai ...2nd Respondent in WP.10313 to 10315/16 The Regional Transport Officer, Chennai(North) Chennai ...2nd Respondent in WP.10316 to 10319/16 The Regional Transport Officer, Chennai(West) Chennai ...2nd Respondent in WP.10320 & 10321/16 The Regional Transport Officer, Sholinganallur Chennai ...2nd Respondent in WP.10322/16

¶8

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

¶9

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 18.01.2016 in form CCPA with the prescribed fee for the grant of a Autorickshaw permit and to consider the same.

¶10

For Petitioners in all : Mr.S. Govindaraman the writ petitions

¶11

For Respondents in all : Mr.M.S. Ramesh the Writ Petitions Additional Government Pleader

¶12

COMMON ORDER

¶13

The petitioners have filed the above writ petitions to issue writs of Mandamus, to direct the second respondent to receive the respective applications of the petitioners dated 18.01.2016 in form CCPA with the prescribed fee for the grant of a Autorickshaw permit and to consider the same.

¶14

Mr.M.S. Ramesh, learned Additional Government Pleader, taking notice for the respondents, 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 applications of the petitioners dated 18.01.2016 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(CS IV)

¶17

//True Copy//

¶18

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶19

¶20

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

¶21

¶22

The Transport Commissioner,
State Transport Authority,
Chepauk,
Chennai – 600 005
2. The Regional Transport Officer,
Tambaram,
Chennai
3. The Regional Transport Officer,
Chennai(North)
Chennai
4. The Regional Transport Officer,
Chennai(West)
Chennai
5. The Regional Transport Officer,
Sholinganallur
Chennai
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.18051
W.P.Nos.10313 to 10322 of 2016
SR(CO)
CA(23/03/2016)

¶23

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

R.Vasudevan v. The Transport Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Vasudevan 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

R.Sundarrajan Vs The Regional Transport Officer

M.Sivakumar, Vs The Regional Transport Officer

G.Chidambaranathan Vs The Transport Commissioner

M/s.Aar Kay Plastics, Vs The Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

Vivek Anand, Vs State Rep by Inspector of

M/s.IG3 Infra Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of