Disposed

M.Johnpaul v. The Regional Transport Officer

Madras HC9 Mar 2016WP/8819/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras disposed of multiple writ petitions filed by individuals seeking direction to the Regional Transport Officers to receive and consider their applications for autorickshaw permits filed in Form CCPA with the prescribed fee.

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondents to receive the respective applications dated 15.02.2016 in Form CCPA along with the prescribed fee and consider them on merits within four weeks.

M.Johnpaul Vs The Regional Transport Officer — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 09.03.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

¶5

W.P.Nos.8819 to 8823 of 2016

¶6

M. Johnpaul .... Petitioner in W.P.No.8819 of 2016 A. Ahmed Jan .... Petitioner in W.P.No.8820 of 2016 S. Bakkiyalakshmi .... Petitioner in W.P.No.8821 of 2016 V. Tamilselvi .... Petitioner in W.P No.8822 of 2016 G. Sajitha .... Petitioner in W.P No.8823 of 2016 Vs. The Regional Transport Officer, Poonamallee, Chennai ..... Respondent in WP No.8819 of 2016 The Regional Transport Officer, Chennai-East, Chennai ..... Respondent in WP No.8820 of 2016 The Regional Transport Officer, Chennai-North East, Chennai .... Respondent in WP Nos.8821,8822 and 8823 of 2016

¶7

Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue Writs of Mandamus, directing the respondent to receive the 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.

¶8

For Petitioners in all : Mr.K. Hariharan the writ petitions For Respondents : Mr.T.N. Rajagopalan Spl.Govt.Pleader.

¶9

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

¶10

\COMMON ORDER

¶11

The petitioners have filed the above writ petitions to issue writs of Mandamus, to direct the respondent to receive the 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.

¶12

Mr.T.N. Rajagopalan, learned Special Government Pleader, takes notice for the respondents and submitted that the respondent may be directed to consider the petitioners' applications in accordance with law.

¶13

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 respondents to receive the respective applications of the petitioners dated 15.02.2016 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.

¶14

With this observation, all the writ petitions are
disposed of. No costs.
sr Sd/-
Asst.Registrar
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
To
1. The Regional Transport Officer,
Poonamallee, Chennai.
2. The Regional Transport Officer,
Chennai-East, Chennai.
3. The Regional Transport Officer,
Chennai-North East, Chennai.
+ 5 ccs to Mr.K. Hariharan, Advocate Sr 14861

¶15

KR/10/3/16

¶16

W.P.Nos.8819 to 8823 of 2016

¶17

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

M.Johnpaul v. The Regional Transport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Johnpaul v. The Regional Transport Officer

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

M.Venkataraman, Vs The District Collector

M/s.Apm Terminals India Pvt. Vs Assistant Commissioner of

R.Kothandaram Vs Chief Commissioner of Income

Vice President-Excise Vs the Deputy Commissioner of

G.Durai Vs The Transport Commissioner

Tvl.Victus Dyeings, Vs The Assistant Commissioner(Ct)