Disposed

C.Karthick v. the Secretary

Madras HC31 Jan 2017WP(MD)/1503/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, hearing a writ petition for transfer of a stage carriage permit, disposed of the matter by directing the Regional Transport Authority, Theni, to consider the petitioner's representation dated 28.12.2016 and pass orders within two months without expressing opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 28.12.2016 and pass orders within two months.

C.Karthick Vs the Secretary — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 31.01.2017

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶5

W.P(MD)No.1503 of 2017

¶6

C.Karthick ... Petitioner

¶7

vs.

¶8

1)The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Theni, Theni District.

¶9

2)The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Dindigul, Dindigul District. ... Respondents

¶10

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 1^st respondent to transfer the petitioner's stage carriage permit issued by the 1^st respondent in his proceedings R.No.07000/A4/ 2016 Permit No.21/SC/TNI/2014 in respect of a bus bearing Registration No.TN57/AX 5775 plying on the route Dindigul -To- Seepalakottai via., Sempatti, Batlangundu, Periyakulam, Theni along with the relevant records to the office of the 2^nd respondent and by considering the petitioner's representation dated 28.12.2016 within the period that may be stipulated by this Honourable Court.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.Mohammed Imran for M/s.Ajmal Associates For Respondents : Mr.A.K.Baskarapandian Special Government Pleader

¶12

ORDER

¶13

Though the prayer in this writ petition is for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 1^st respondent to transfer the petitioner's stage carriage permit issued by the 1^st respondent in his proceedings R.No.07000/A4/ 2016 Permit No.21/SC/TNI/2014 in respect of a bus bearing Registration No.TN57/AX 5775 plying on the route Dindigul to Seepalakottai via., Sempatti, Batlangundu, Periyakulam, Theni, along with the relevant records to the office https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of the 2^nd respondent, by considering the petitioner's representation dated 28.12.2016, when the matter came up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that it

¶14

¶15

is suffice, if a direction is issued to the 1^st respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 28.12.2016 and to pass orders, within a time frame.

¶16

2.In view of the limited relief sought for, without expressing

¶17

any opinion on the merits of the case, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 1^st respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 28.12.2016, if already received, and to pass orders in accordance with law, if there are no legal impediments, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶18

Sd/-

¶19

Assistant Registrar)(CS-I)

¶20

/True Copy/

¶21

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai-23.

¶22

¶23

1)The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Theni,

¶24

Theni District.

¶25

2)The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

¶26

+1cc to M/s.AJMAL ASSOCIATES Advocate in SR. No.5205 NBI JS/BS/13.02.2017/2P-4C

¶27

W.P(MD)No.1503 of 2017 31.01.2017

¶28

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

C.Karthick v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Karthick v. the Secretary

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

Saravanan Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Ismail, S/O.Syed Rowthar, Vs the Inspector of Police

G.Veluchamy Vs the Conservator of Forest

G.Dhanalakshmi Vs the Inspector of Police

P.L.Muthu, Vs the District Collector

M.Yogamalar Vs the Inspector General of