Allowed

A.Prabhakaran v. The Transport Commissioner

Madras HC12 Jan 2016WP/1072/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bench disposed of 19 co-writ petitions filed by autorickshaw drivers seeking mandamus orders to direct respective Regional Transport Officers to receive applications in Form CCPA and grant permits within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directing respective Regional Transport Officers to receive applications, consider them, and pass orders on merits for grant of autorickshaw permits within four weeks.

A.Prabhakaran Vs The Transport Commissioner — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 12.01.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN

¶5

W.P.Nos.1072 to 1090 of 2016

¶6

A. PRABHAKARAN ..PETITIONER IN WP.1072/16 A. NOOR MOHAMMED ..PETITIONER IN WP.1073/16 A. RAJARATHINAM ..PETITIONER IN WP.1074/16 K. RAJAN ..PETITIONER IN WP.1075/16 K. ABDUL KAREEM ..PETITIONER IN WP.1076/16 V. MANI ..PETITIONER IN WP.1077/16 A. THAMEEM ANSARI ..PETITIONER IN WP.1078/16 P. JANSIRANI ..PETITIONER IN WP.1079/16 R. VAVAPUHARDDIN RAHAMADULLA ..PETITIONER IN WP.1080/16 A. BABU ..PETITIONER IN WP.1081/16 I. SOLAI MUTHU ..PETITIONER IN WP.1082/16 K. DILLI BABU ..PETITIONER IN WP.1083/16 A. SATHISH KUMAR ..PETITIONER IN WP.1084/16 P. SURESH ..PETITIONER IN WP.1085/16 M. MANIKANDAN ..PETITIONER IN WP.1086/16 N. POORNAM ..PETITIONER IN WP.1087/16 D. GEETHA ..PETITIONER IN WP.1088/16 P. CHANDRASEKAR ..PETITIONER IN WP.1089/16 A. MEERASHA ..PETITIONER IN WP.1090/16 Vs. 1. THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, CHEPAUK CHENNAI. ..1ST RESPONDENT IN WP.1072/16 TO WP 1090/16

¶7

THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, CHENNAI (NORTH EAST), CHENNAI.

¶8

..2ND RESPONDENT IN WP.1072/16 TO WP 1081/16

¶9

THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, CHENNAI NORTH, CHENNAI.

¶10

..2ND RESPONDENT IN WP.1082/16 TO WP 1086/16

¶11

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

¶12

THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, REDHILLS, CHENNAI.

¶13

..2ND RESPONDENT IN WP.1087/16 TO WP 1089/16

¶14

THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, POONAMALLEE, CHENNAI.

¶15

..2ND RESPONDENT IN WP.1090/16

¶16

Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to receive the application of the petitioner dated 05.10.2015, in Form CCPA with the prescribed fee for the grant of Autorickshaw Permit and to consider the same and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶17

These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners seeking the common relief of issuing a Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to direct the respective Regional Transport Authority concerned to receive the respective application of the petitioners in Form CCPA and the prescribed fee for the grant of autorickshaw permit and to consider the same and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶18

Mr.R.M.Muthukumar, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents.

¶19

Without going into the merits of the matters, these writ petitions are disposed of by directing the respective Regional Transport Officer concerned to receive the applications of the petitioners, consider the same and pass appropriate orders for grant of autorickshaw permit, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. rpa Sd/-

Asst.Registrar

/true copy/

Sub Asst. Registrar

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

¶24

¶25

THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, CHEPAUK CHENNAI-5.

¶26

THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, CHENNAI (NORTH EAST), CHENNAI.

¶27

THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, CHENNAI NORTH, CHENNAI.

¶28

THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
REDHILLS, CHENNAI.
5. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
POONAMALLEE, CHENNAI.
SCD/CO
KR/22/1/16
W.P.Nos.1072 to 1090 of 2016

¶29

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

A.Prabhakaran v. The Transport Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Prabhakaran 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.N.Radha Vs The Goverment of Tamil Nadu

Mantralaya Impex Vs The Deputy Commercial Tax

S.Dhanakodian, Vs The Registrar of the

M/s.Rose Traders, Vs The Commissioner of Customs

D.Ponnuswamy, Vs The Deputy Inspector General

M/s.Arul Exports & Imports, Vs The Commissioner of Customs-I