Disposed

Kalki Driving School v. The State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC13 Apr 2016WP/13667/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras disposed of a writ petition seeking certiorari to quash orders concerning a driving school. Relying on a precedent, the court directed the petitioner to submit a representation within two weeks for the respondents to consider within four weeks pending an order of status quo.

What did the court decide?

Direction to petitioner to file representation; status quo granted pending respondents' disposal.

Kalki Driving School Vs The State of Tamilnadu — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 13.04.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

¶5

W.P.No.13667 of 2016 and W.M.P.Nos.11954 & 11955 of 2016

¶6

Kalki Driving School

¶7

rep by its Proprietor A.C.Ragupathi,

¶8

No.32, Udayar Complex,

¶9

Kalki ITI Building,

¶10

Omalur, Salem District – 636 455. ... Petitioner Vs.

¶11

The State of Tamil Nadu rep by its Principal Secretary, Home (Transport – 5) Department,

¶12

Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶13

The Transport Commissioner, Chepauk, Chennai – 5. ... Respondents

¶14

Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the order of the 1^st respondent dated 05.08.2010 in G.O.(Ms).No.697, Home (Transport – 5) Department and consequential order of the 2^nd respondent dated 17.06.2015 in R.No.22370/H1/2008 and to quash the same only insofar as it relates to the petitioner.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.V.R.Annagandhi

¶16

The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to issue a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the order of the 1^st respondent dated 05.08.2010 in G.O.(Ms). No.697, Home (Transport – 5) Department and consequential order of the 2^nd respondent dated 17.06.2015 and to quash the same only insofar as it relates to the petitioner.

¶17

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

¶18

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue involved in the present writ petition is covered by the decision of this Court made in W.P.Nos.19362 of 2015 etc., batch dated 15.09.2015. In the said order, this Court passed the following order:

¶19

"Admittedly, this Court passed an Order in W.P.No.19157 of 2010 on 27.06.2011, directing the petitioners to submit a representation. The petitioners claim that their Association submitted the representation dated 11.07.2011, which is denied by the respondents. Had it not been true, the respondents should not have allowed the petitioners to conduct the course as on date. In view of the above, these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to file their representations to the respondents, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such representations being submitted by the petitioners herein, the same shall be considered and necessary orders be passed by the respondents, within a further period of four weeks.

¶20

10.At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the order of status quo granted by this Court may be extended till the disposal of their representations to be given by the petitioners.

¶21

11.In view of the above submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, status quo already granted by this Court is extended till the disposal of the representations to be filed by the petitioners."

¶22

3.Mr.M.S.Ramesh, learned Additional Government Pleader taking notice for the respondents submitted that the relief sought for in the Writ Petition is covered by the decision of this Court made in W.P.No.19362 of 2015 etc., batch dated 15.09.2015.

¶23

4.Following the order passed in the said batch of Writ Petitions, the present Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file their representation to the respondents within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such representation being submitted by the petitioner, the same shall be considered and necessary orders be passed by the respondents within a period of four weeks thereafter. There shall be an order of Status quo till the disposal of the representation by the respondents.

¶24

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

¶25

5.With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶26

Assistant Registrar(CS IV)

¶27

//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
va
To
1. The Principal Secretary,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Home (Transport – 5) Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Transport Commissioner,
Chepauk, Chennai – 5.
+1cc to Mr.V.R.Annagandhi, Advocate, S.R.No.23097
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.23498
W.P.No.13667 of 2016
and
W.M.P.Nos.11954 & 11955 of 2016
PVS(CO)
CA(25/04/2016)

¶28

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

Kalki Driving School v. The State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalki Driving School v. The State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Baby Preetha, Vs The Registering Authority Cum

S.Mohan, Vs The Sub Collector

Super Driving School Vs the Transport Commissioner

M/S.Vincent Devaraj & Bros. Vs the Commr.of Income Tax - II

M/s.Nagarjuna Oil Corporation Vs The Deputy Commissioner

M/s. Adayar Gate Hotel ltd, Vs The Deputy Commissioner of