Allowed

C.Ravindran, v. Secretary, Regional Transport

Madras HC22 Apr 2016WP/14792/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge High Court of Madras allowed a writ petition quashing an order passed without hearing. It remanded the matter to the Regional Transport Authority for fresh consideration with an opportunity of personal hearing directed within two weeks, alongside directions for releasing the petitioner's bus. No costs. Connected MPCs closed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 24.03.2016 set aside and remanded to respondent for fresh consideration. Petitioner directed to appear for enquiry and decide vehicle release within two weeks from 04.05.2016. No

C.Ravindran, Vs Secretary, Regional Transport — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 22.04.2016

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

¶5

W.P.No.14792 of 2016

¶6

W.M.P.Nos.12931 to 12933 of 2016

¶7

C.Ravindran ... Petitioner

¶8

The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Hosur, Krishnagiri District. ... Respondent

¶9

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the respondent relating to the file in letter R.No.7809/A4/2016 dated 24.03.2016 and to quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to release the petitioner's bus OD-21/A-1697 forthwith.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Hariharan

¶11

For Respondent : Mr.M.S.Ramesh, Additional Government Pleader

¶12

The above Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the respondent relating to the letter dated 24.03.2016 and to quash the same and consequently, to direct the respondent to release the petitioner's Bus bearing Registration No.OD 21 A 1697.

¶13

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that inspite of the petitioner's request to the respondent to give an opportunity of personal hearing vide his reply dated 21.03.2016, the respondent has passed the impugned order without giving an opportunity of personal hearing, which is violative of principles of natural justice. Further, the learned counsel submitted that so far as the release of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ vehicle is concerned, inspite of the order passed by this

¶14

Court on 15.03.2016 in W.P.No.8780 of 2016, the respondent has not considered the same.

¶15

3.Mr.M.S.Ramesh, learned Additional Government Pleader taking notice for the respondent submitted that since the petitioner is seeking for an opportunity of personal hearing, the impugned order may be set aside on that ground and the respondent may be directed to decide the matter afresh, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner.

¶16

4.In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, since the petitioner was not given an opportunity of personal hearing, which is violative of principles of natural justice, the impugned order dated 24.03.2016 is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the same is set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration.

¶17

5.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would appear before the respondent for enquiry on 04.05.2016.

¶18

6.The petitioner shall also make his submissions before the respondent for the release of the vehicle. The respondent is directed to decide the matter afresh and pass orders, after affording due opportunity of personal hearing within a period of two weeks from 04.05.2016. The respondent is also directed to pass orders with regard to the release of the vehicle sought for by the petitioner.

¶19

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

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

//True Copy//

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

¶26

The Secretary,

¶27

Regional Transport Authority, Hosur, Krishnagiri District.

¶28

1 cc to Mr.K.Hariharan, Advocate Sr 25070

¶29

1 cc to The Govt.Pleader, Sr 25427

¶30

KR/26/4/16 W.P.No.14792 of 2016 and W.M.P.Nos.12931 to 12933 of 2016

¶31

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

C.Ravindran, v. Secretary, Regional Transport

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Ravindran, v. Secretary, Regional Transport

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Vaithilingam Vs The Regional Transport

M/s.Venu Residency, Vs The Joint Commissioner

M/s.Sri Kannika Parameswari Vs The Assistant Commissioner

Mahalaxmi Inn Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Managing Director

M. Sumathy Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax

S.a.Kamleshkumar Amarchand Vs The Deputy Commissioner of