Disposed

L.Sathya, v. The Transport Commissioner

Madras HC8 Mar 2016WP/8611/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a common order disposing of multiple writ petitions, the High Court of Madras directed the Regional Transport Officer to receive and consider applications for Autorickshaw permits without expressing an opinion on the merits. The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus to compel the authorities to receive their applications dated 05.01.2016.

What did the court decide?

Direct the second respondent to receive applications dated 05.01.2016 in Form CCPA with prescribed fee and consider them on merits within four weeks.

L.Sathya, Vs The Transport Commissioner — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 08.03.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

¶5

W.P.Nos.8611 to 8619 of 2016 L. Sathiya .... Petitioner in W.P.No.8611 of 2016 N. Srinivasan .... Petitioner in W.P.No.8612 of 2016 S. Ponnaiyan .... Petitioner in W.P.No.8613 of 2016 G. Lakshmi .... Petitioner in W.P.No.8614 of 2016 M. Chitra .... Petitioner in W.P.No.8615 of 2016 S. Asina Begum .... Petitioner in W.P.No.8616 of 2016 A. Prabhu .... Petitioner in W.P.No.8617 of 2016 V.K. Nagaraj .... Petitioner in W.P.No.8618 of 2016 S. Liyakath Ali .... Petitioner in W.P.No.8619 of 2016 Vs..

¶6

The Transport Commissioner, State Transport Authority, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005

¶7

The Regional Transport Officer, Redhills, Chennai.

¶8

.. Respondents in all the Writ Petitions

¶9

Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue Writs of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to receive the applications of the petitioners dated 05.01.2016 in form CCPA with the prescribed fee for the grant of a Autorickshaw permit and to consider the same.

¶10

For Petitioners in all : Mr.J.S. Arunkumar the Writ Petitions

¶11

For Respondents : Mr.A. Rajaperumal Govt. Advocate

¶12

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

¶13

COMMON ORDER

¶14

The petitioners have filed the above writ petitions to issue writs of Mandamus, to direct the second respondent to receive the respective applications of the petitioners dated 05.01.2016 in form CCPA with the prescribed fee for the grant of a Autorickshaw permit and to consider the same.

¶15

Mr.A. Rajaperumal, learned Government Advocate, takes notice for the respondents and submitted that the second respondent may be directed to consider the petitioners' applications in accordance with law.

¶16

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 to receive the respective applications of the petitioners dated 05.01.2016 in Form CCPA and the prescribed fee for the grant of Autorickshaw permit and consider the same on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶17

With this observation, all the writ petitions are
disposed of. No costs.
sr Sd/-
Asst.Registrar
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
To
1. The Transport Commissioner,
State Transport Authority,
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
2. The Regional Transport Officer,
Redhills, Chennai.
+ 9 CCS TO M/S.J.S.ARUNKUMAR, ADVOCATE SR 14806, DATED 8/3/16
KR/9/3/16

¶18

W.P.Nos.8611 to 8619 of 2016

¶19

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

L.Sathya, v. The Transport Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

L.Sathya, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Pratab Arumugam Vs The District Collector

K.R.Satchidanandam Vs a.M.Madharsha(Died)

M/s. Jmn Distribution Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Assistant Commissioner

M/s. Crimson Metal Engineering Vs The Deputy Commerical Tax

M/s.Al Kasim Leather, Vs Commercial Tax Officer

M/s.S.N.T.Leathers Vs Assistant Commissioner (Ct)