Allowed

B.Jayakumar, v. The Transport Commissioner

Madras HC25 Apr 2016WP/15036/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In these writ petitions, the Court directed the Regional Transport Officers to receive and consider applications filed by petitioners for grant of Autorickshaw permits on merits within four weeks, disposing of the writ petitions accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to receive the applications and consider them on merits within four weeks.

B.Jayakumar, Vs The Transport Commissioner — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 25.04.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

¶5

W.P.Nos.15036 to 15046 of 2016

¶6

B.Jayakumar ..Petitioner in W.P.No.15036/2016 M.Vadivelu ..Petitioner in W.P.No.15037/2016 B.Dinesh ..Petitioner in W.P.No.15038/2016 R.Mohan ..Petitioner in W.P.No.15039/2016 R.Vasudevan ..Petitioner in W.P.No.15040/2016 A.Balaraman ..Petitioner in W.P.No.15041/2016 M.Manikandan ..Petitioner in W.P.No.15042/2016 S.Mariyammal ..Petitioner in W.P.No.15043/2016 S.Sasikumar ..Petitioner in W.P.No.15044/2016 K.Kannan ..Petitioner in W.P.No.15045/2016 A.Loganathan ..Petitioner in W.P.No.15046/2016 Vs. 1. The Transport Commissioner State Transport Authority Chepauk, Chennai- 600 005. ..1st Respondent in All the WPS. 2. The Regional Transport Officer Sholinganallur, Chennai. ..2nd Respondent in WPS.15036 TO 15042/16 3. The Regional Transport Officer, Chennai (North), Chennai. ..2nd Respondent in WPS.15043 & 15044/16

¶7

The Regional Transport Officer, Chennai (West), Chennai. ..2nd Respondent in WPS.15045 & 15046/16 Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to receive the application of the petitioner dated 15.02.2016 in form CCPA with the prescribed fee for the grant of a Autorickshaw permit and to consider the same.

¶8

For Petitioners : Mr.S.Govindaraman

¶9

For Respondents : Mr.P.V.Selva Kumar Addl. Govt. Pleader

¶10

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

¶11

COMMON ORDER

¶12

The petitioners have filed the above writ petitions to issue a writ of Mandamus, to direct the second respondent concerned to receive the respective applications of the petitioners dated 15.02.2016 in form CCPA with the prescribed fee for the grant of a Autorickshaw permit and to consider the same.

¶13

Mr.P.V.Selva Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents and submitted that the second respondent concerned may be directed to consider the petitioners' application in accordance with law.

¶14

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and taking into consideration the limited prayer sought for by the petitioners, without expressing any opinion with regard to the merits of the case, I direct the second respondent concerned to receive the applications of the petitioners dated 15.02.2016 and consider the same and pass appropriate orders on the respective applications of the petitioners 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.

¶15

With this observation, the writ petitions are disposed of.
No costs.
rj Sd/-
Asst.Registrar
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
TO

¶16

The Transport Commissioner State Transport Authority

¶17

Chepauk, Chennai- 600 005.

¶18

The Regional Transport Officer

¶19

Sholinganallur, Chennai.

¶20

The Regional Transport Officer, Chennai (North), Chennai.

¶21

The Regional Transport Officer,

¶22

Chennai (West), Chennai.

¶23

- 1 cc to The Govt.Pleader, Sr 25889

¶24

- 11 ccs to Mr.S.Govindraman, Advocate Sr 26612

¶25

KR/28/4/16

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.Nos.15036 to 15046 of 2016

B.Jayakumar, v. The Transport Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Jayakumar, 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

Mahalaxmi Inn Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Managing Director

M. Sumathy Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax

C.Ravindran, Vs Secretary, Regional Transport

V.Palaniammal, Vs the Tamil Nadu Small

D. Maran Vs The State Transport Authority

A.Velankanni Vs The District Collector