Disposed

R. Karthik v. The State Transport Authority

Madras HC18 Apr 2016WP/13801/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 directing the respondent to consider an application for a contract carriage permit. The court directed the respondent to pass orders on merits within four weeks without expressing an opinion on the merits, disposing of the petition. No costs awarded.

What did the court decide?

Direct the respondent to consider the petitioner's application dated 31.08.2015 and pass orders on merits within four weeks without expressing an opinion on merits.

R. Karthik Vs The State Transport Authority — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 18.04.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

¶5

W.P.No.13801 of 2016

¶6

R. Karthik

¶7

.. Petitioner
Vs.
The State Transport Authority,
Chepauk,
Chennai – 600 005 .. Respondent
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to
consider and pass orders on the petitioner's Application dated
31.08.2015 for the grant of Contract Carriage Omni Bus permit.
( dealt with R,No.45412/A3/2015).

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Hariharan
For Respondent : Mr.A. Zakir Hussain
Govt. Advocate
ORDER

¶9

The petitioner has filed the above writ petition to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's Application dated 31.08.2015 for the grant of Contract Carriage Omni Bus permit.

¶10

Mr.A. Zakir Hussain, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent, submitted that the respondent may be directed to consider the petitioner's representation and pass orders in accordance with law within a stipulated time.

¶11

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and taking into consideration the limited prayer sought for by the petitioner, without expressing any opinion with regard to the merits of the case, I direct the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 31.08.2015 for the grant of Contract Carriage Omni Bus permit and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy

¶12

of this order. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶13

sr Sd/-
Asst.Registrar
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
To
The State Transport Authority,
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
+ 1 cc to The Govt.Pleader, Sr 24241
+ 1 cc to Mr.K.Hariharan, Advocate Sr 24000
KR/22/4/16
W.P.No.13801 of 2016

¶14

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

R. Karthik v. The State Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R. Karthik v. The State Transport Authority

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

Tvl.Niro Ceramic India Pvt. Vs The Commercial Tax Officer

M/s.Om Marble & Granites Vs The Commercial Tax Officer

N.Shankar, Vs The Transport Commissioner

M/s.Trinity forwarders Vs The Commissioner of Customs

S.Nalini Vs The Regional Transport

M/s.National Dairy Development Vs Commissioner of Commercial