Allowed

S.Udhayakumar v. The Secretary

Madras HC11 Apr 2017WP/8620/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the rejection of an autorickshaw permit renewal due to belated filing. The Court held that the authority could not mechanically reject the application despite a submitted medical certificate and directed remittal.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned order quashed; matter remitted to respondent to consider renewal application within 3 weeks.

S.Udhayakumar Vs The Secretary — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED:11.04.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAVICHANDRABAABU

¶5

W.P.No. 8620 of 2017

¶6

S. Udhayakumar ...Petitioner

¶7

Versus The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Vellore – 9. ...Respondent PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction in the nature of a writ calling for the records relating to the order of the respondent made in R.No.A2/03819/2017 dated 08.03.2017 and to quash the same, consequently direct the respondent herein grant the renewal of the Petitioner's Autorickshaw permit as applied for in respect of Vehicle TN-23AF-4060 forthwith.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr. K. Hariharan For Respondent : Mr. M. Elumalai, Government Advocate. O R D E R

¶9

The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of the respondent rejecting the renewal application filed by the petitioner seeking for renewal of the auto rickshaw permit, on the ground that the same was filed belatedly.

¶10

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent.

¶11

It is not in dispute that the writ petitioner was originally granted auto rickshaw permit and that he made application for renewal of such permit. The only objection raised by the respondent is that the application was filed after the expiry of 15 days time stipulated under the statute for making such application. In other words, it is the contention of the respondent that such application should have been made 15

¶12

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

¶13

days prior to the expiry of the original permit. No doubt, the petitioner has filed his application for renewal after the expiry of such period. But at the same time, the case of the petitioner is that he was unwell at the relevant point of time and therefore, he was not in a position to make his application within the time. It is stated that the petitioner has filed Medical Certificate before the respondent.

¶14

The respondent, while admitting the fact that the reason stated for belated filing was due to the illness of the petitioner, has not stated any reason as to how the respondent is not convinced with such reason. In other words, the respondent has not doubted the illness of the petitioner. However, the impugned order came to be passed only by stating that the application was filed belatedly.

¶15

Needless to say that when the respondent is having power to condone the delay and when the petitioner is said to have filed Medical Certificate in support of his contention, the respondent is not justified in passing the order impugned in this writ petition, mechanically stating that the same is filed belatedly. I find every justification to accept the reasons for condonation.

¶16

The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on a decision of this Court made in W.P.No.38431 of 2016 dated 04.11.2016, passed under similar circumstances wherein this Court, after condonation of delay, has directed the authority to consider the renewal application on merits.

¶17

Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the respondent for considering the application filed by the petitioner seeking for renewal of the autorickshaw permit and dispose of the same in accordance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Such exercise shall be done by the respondent within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶18

-s/dAssistant Registrar True Copy

¶19

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶20

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

¶21

¶22

The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Vellore – 9.

¶23

+1 CC to Mr. K.Hariharan, Advocate sr 21839

¶24

+1 CC to The Govt. Pleader sr 22272

¶25

W.P.No. 8620 of 2017
SK(CO)
sp/20/4

¶26

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

S.Udhayakumar v. The Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Udhayakumar v. The Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. Avalon cosmetics Pvt. Ltd. Vs The commissioner of customs

M/s.Softech Infinium Solutions Vs The Principal Commissioner

Ashok Leyland Ltd. Vs The Deputy Commissioner

B.Vijayan, S/o.Balayayam, Vs The Regional Transport Officer

M/s.Texpert Vs The Commissioner of Customs

V.G.N.Developers Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Assistant Commissioner