Disposed

P.Shakila v. The Transport Commissioner

Madras HC21 Mar 2016WP/10432/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court issued a common order in ten writ petitions filed under Article 226. The petitioner sought a mandate for the Respondent Transport Officer to receive and consider applications for Autorickshaw permits dated 02.02.2016. The Court directed the Respondent to accept the applications and the prescribed fees and consider them on merits within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the second respondent to receive the petitioners' applications dated 02.02.2016 in Form CCPA with the prescribed fee for the grant of an Autorickshaw permit and consider them on merits wi

P.Shakila 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.10432 to 10441 of 2016

¶6

P. Shakila ... Petitioner in W.P.10432 of 2016 Beaula Rajeshwari ... Petitioner in W.P.10433 of 2016 Manoharan ... Petitioner in W.P.10434 of 2016 A. Parivallal ... Petitioner in W.P.10435 of 2016 A. Ashok ... Petitioner in W.P.10436 of 2016 S. Rajeswari ... Petitioner in W.P.10437 of 2016 C. Sivasankar ... Petitioner in W.P.10438 of 2016 S. Jansi Rani ... Petitioner in W.P.10439 of 2016 P. Indira ... Petitioner in W.P.10440 of 2016 M. Panes Raj ... Petitioner in W.P.10441 of 2016 v. 1. The Transport Commissioner, State Transport Authority, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005...1st Respondent in all the Writ Petitions 2. The Regional Transport Officer, Chennai North, Chennai ..2nd Respondent in W.P.Nos.10432, 10440 and 10441 of 2016

¶7

The Regional Transport Officer Chennai North East Chennai ...2nd Respondent in W.P.10433, 10434, 10435, 10436, 10437, 10438, 10439/2016

¶8

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 02.02.2016 in form CCPA with the prescribed fee for the grant of a Autorickshaw permit and to consider the same.

¶9

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

¶10

For Petitioners in all : Mr.S. Govindaraman the writ petitions For Respondents : Mr.A. Selvakumar AGP in all the Petitions

¶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 respective applications of the petitioners dated 02.02.2016 in form CCPA with the prescribed fee for the grant of a Autorickshaw permit and to consider the same.

¶13

Mr.A. Selvakumar, 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.

¶14

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 02.02.2016 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.

¶15

With this observation, all the writ petitions are disposed of. No costs. Sd/Asst.Registrar (CS IV ) /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar sr To 1. The Transport Commissioner, State Transport Authority, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005

¶16

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

¶17

The Regional Transport Officer, Chennai North, Chennai

¶18

The Regional Transport Officer Chennai North East Chennai

¶19

10 ccs to M/s.S. Govindaraman, Advocate, Sr. 17911 1 cc to Government Pleader, SWr. 18084

¶20

W.P.Nos.10432 to 10441 of 2016
UG (CO)
kk 23/3

¶21

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

P.Shakila v. The Transport Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Shakila 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