Disposed

G.Vaithilingam v. The Regional Transport

Madras HC20 Apr 2016WP/13665/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought a direction to the Regional Transport Authority to consider a pending application for a minibus permit filed over ten years ago. The Court directed the Authority to consider the application on merits within eight weeks and grant a personal hearing.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Respondent to consider the petitioner's 2005 application for permit, decide it on merits, and afford the petitioner a personal hearing within eight weeks.

G.Vaithilingam Vs The Regional Transport — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 20.04.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE Hon'ble Mr.JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMY

¶5

W.P.No.13665 of 2016

¶6

G. Vaithilingam ..... Petitioner

¶7

The Regional Transport Authority, Villupuram .... Respondent

¶8

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to forthwith consider the petitioner's application dated 01.01.2005 for grant of minibus permit on the route " Kallakurichi Bus Stand to Malaikottalam Colony" and grant the same.

¶9

The petitioner has filed the writ petition for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to consider the petitioner's application dated 01.01.2005 for grant of minibus permit on the route " Kallakurichi Bus Stand to Malaikottalam Colony".

¶10

Ms.S. Radha Gopalan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that inspite of the petitioner's application dated 01.01.2005, the respondent has not considered the same even after a lapse of more than ten years. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent may be directed to consider the petitioner's application and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶11

Mr.P.V.Selvakumar, learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing for the respondent, submitted that the respondent may be directed to consider the petitioner's application dated 01.01.2005 and pass orders taking into consideration the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.136 dated 23.02.2011 Home (Transport.III) Department.

¶12

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

¶13

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner may be given an opportunity to appear before the respondent prior to the passing of any order in the petitioner's application to make his submission with regard to the application of the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.136 dated 23.02.2011 Home (Transport.III) Department.

¶14

In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also taking into consideration the limited prayer sought for by the writ petitioner, without expressing any opinion with regard to the mertis of the case, I direct the respondent to consider the petitioner's application dated 01.01.2015 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The respondent is directed to give an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.

¶15

With regard to the application of the Government Order
in G.O.Ms.No.136 dated 23.02.2011, the petitioner is at liberty
to make his submissions before the respondent. With these
observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-IV)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
sr
To
The Regional Transport Authority,
Villupuram
+1 cc to M/s.S.Radha Gopalan, Advocate, sr.24920
+1 cc to Government Pleader, sr.24536

¶16

WP.No.13665/2016

¶17

svi co kra 26.04.2016

¶18

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

G.Vaithilingam v. The Regional Transport

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Vaithilingam v. The Regional Transport

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. Karthik Vs The State Transport Authority

M/s.National Dairy Development Vs Commissioner of Commercial

Dhanakotti, Vs The District Collector

S.Thangammal Vs The District Collector

M/s.Venu Residency, Vs The Joint Commissioner

M/s.Sri Kannika Parameswari Vs The Assistant Commissioner