Allowed

R.Ganesan v. The Transport Commissioner

Madras HC14 Mar 2016WP/9381/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a common order disposing of 20 writ petitions, the Supreme Court of Madras directed various Regional Transport Officers to accept and consider autorickshaw permit applications filed on 11.01.2016.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent to receive the petitioners' applications dated 11.01.2016 in Form CCPA along with prescribed fee and consider them on merits and in accordance with law within six weeks.

R.Ganesan Vs The Transport Commissioner — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 14.03.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

¶5

W.P.Nos.9381 to 9400 of 2016

¶6

R.Ganesan ... Petitioner in W.P.9381 of 2016 V.Ganesh ... Petitioner in W.P.9382 of 2016 G.Kumaran ... Petitioner in W.P.9383 of 2016 D.Premkumar ... Petitioner in W.P.9384 of 2016 K.Raguraman ... Petitioner in W.P.9385 of 2016 R.Prakash ... Petitioner in W.P.9386 of 2016 K.Prakash ... Petitioner in W.P.9387 of 2016 S.Sasikumar ... Petitioner in W.P.9388 of 2016 R.Marimuthu ... Petitioner in W.P.9389 of 2016 R.Kanniyammal ... Petitioner in W.P.9390 of 2016 Suriyakala ... Petitioner in W.P.9391 of 2016 A.Selvabakiam ... Petitioner in W.P.9392 of 2016 K.Rayappan ... Petitioner in W.P.9393 of 2016 R.Rajesh ... Petitioner in W.P.9394 of 2016 D.Rajesh ... Petitioner in W.P.9395 of 2016 A.Kani ... Petitioner in W.P.9396 of 2016 M.Manimozhi ... Petitioner in W.P.9397 of 2016 P.Annamalai ... Petitioner in W.P.9398 of 2016 N.Jagan ... Petitioner in W.P.9399 of 2016 K.Babu ... Petitioner in W.P.9400 of 2016 Vs. 1.The Transport Commissioner, State Transport Authority, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005 ... 1^st Respondent in all W.Ps. 2.The Regional Transport Officer, Chennai (North East), Chennai. ... 2^nd Respondent in all W.P.9381 to 9386/16 2.The Regional Transport Officer, Chennai (South), Chennai. ... 2^nd Respondent in W.P.9387 to 9391/2016 2.The Regional Transport Officer, Chennai (West), Chennai. ... 2^nd Respondent in W.P.9392/2016

¶7

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

¶8

2.The Regional Transport Officer, Chennai (North), Chennai. ... 2^nd Respondent in W.P.9393/2016

¶9

2.The Regional Transport Officer, Poonamallee, Chennai. ... 2^nd Respondent in W.P.9394, 9395/2016

¶10

2.The Regional Transport Officer, Thiruvallur, Chennai. ... 2^nd Respondent in W.P.9396/2016

¶11

2.The Regional Transport Officer,
Ambattur, Chennai. ... 2 nd Respondent in
W.P.9397/2016
2.The Regional Transport Officer,
Sholinganallur, Chennai. ... 2 nd Respondent in
W.P.9398, 399/2016
2.The Regional Transport Officer,
Chennai (North West), Chennai. ... 2 nd Respondent in
W.P.9400/2016

¶12

Petitions filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus to direct the 2^nd respondent to receive the applications of the petitioners dated 11.01.2016 in Form CCPA and the prescribed fee for the grant of Autorickshaw permit and to consider the same.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Govindraman
(in all W.Ps)
For Respondents : Mr.A.Rajaperumal,
(in all W.Ps) Government Advocate
C O M M O N O R D E R

¶14

The petitioners have filed the above Writ Petitions to issue writ of mandamus to direct the 2^nd respondent to receive the applications of the petitioners dated 11.01.2016 in Form CCPA and the prescribed fee for the grant of Autorickshaw permit and to consider the same.

¶15

2.Mr.A.Rajaperumal, learned Government Advocate taking notice for the respondents submitted that the 2^nd respondent may be directed to consider the petitioners' applications in accordance with law.

¶16

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

¶17

3.Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, taking into consideration the limited prayer sought for in these Writ Petitions, without expressing any opinion with regard to the merits of the case, I direct the 2^nd respondent to receive the petitioners' applications dated 11.01.2016 in Form-CCPA and the prescribed fee for the grant of Autorickshaw permit and to consider the same on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶18

4.With this observation, the Writ Petitions are disposed of. No costs.

¶19

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶20

//True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar

¶21

To 1.The Transport Commissioner, State Transport Authority, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005. 2.The Regional Transport Officer, Chennai (North East), Chennai. 3.The Regional Transport Officer, Chennai (South), Chennai. 4.The Regional Transport Officer, Chennai (West), Chennai. 5.The Regional Transport Officer, Chennai (North), Chennai. 6.The Regional Transport Officer, Poonamallee, Chennai. 7.The Regional Transport Officer, Thiruvallur, Chennai. 8.The Regional Transport Officer, Ambattur, Chennai.

¶22

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

¶23

9.The Regional Transport Officer, Sholinganallur, Chennai.

¶24

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

¶25

+20cc to Mr.Govindaraman, Advocate, S.R.No.16164

¶26

+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.16368

¶27

W.P.Nos.9381 to 9400 of 2016
jsv(CO)
srg(16/03/2016)

¶28

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

R.Ganesan v. The Transport Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Ganesan 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

Hotel Riga Residency Vs The Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

Tvl.Camera Citi Vs The Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

Tvl. Rasi Tax (In) P Ltd. Vs The Commercial Tax Officer

A.L.Gayathri Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax

R.Uma, Vs The Transport Commissioner

A.Kani, Vs The Transport Commissioner