Remanded

G. Ananth, S/O. Ganapathi, v. the District Collector Cum

Madras HC8 Oct 2018WP(MD)/19921/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, a mini stage car permit holder sought a writ of mandamus directing the Regional Transport Authority to consider his representation to alter his vehicle's starting point from a congested police station to a town. The High Court directed the respondent to consider the representation and pass orders on merits after a personal hearing within four weeks without adjudicating the m

What did the court decide?

Directs the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders on merits after affording a personal hearing within four weeks.

G. Ananth, S/O. Ganapathi, Vs the District Collector Cum — Property and Title | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 08.10.2018

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.19921 of 2018

G.Ananth

.. Petitioner

Vs.

The District Collector cum Regional Transport Authority, Tirunelveli. .. Respondent

¶11

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of MANDAMUS, directing the respondent to consider and pass orders forthwith on the petitioner's representation dated 27.08.2018, so as to enable the petitioner to ply his Mini Stage Carriage covered by the Vehicle TN-72-BC-6282 from Tirunelveli Town instead of Pettai Police Station.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Padmanabhan For Respondent : Mr.R.Murugan, Additional Government Pleader

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record.

¶15

The petitioner before this Court is a holder of Mini Stage permit on the route Pettai Police Station to Gomathi Nagar West, covered by his vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-72-BC-6282. As per the permit, Pettai Police Station is the terminus as well as starting point. Due to narrow road and increase in two wheeler movement in front of Pettai Police Station, according to the petitioner, the police authorities are restricting the petitioner to pick up and set down passengers in that station. Moreover, taking reversal of the bus is too difficult, because of the traffic congestion. Therefore, the petitioner, citing his grievances, has made a detailed representation to the respondent on 27.08.2018, requesting to halt and take reversal from Tirunelveli Town, instead of Pettai Police Station. However, no reply is forthcoming and hence, the petitioner is before this Court seeking a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to consider and pass orders on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ his representation dated 27.08.2018.

¶16

¶17

Learned Additional Government Pleader, on instructions,

¶18

would submit that insofar as mini buses are concerned, they have to ply only in the permitted route and not otherwise. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the present writ petition.

¶19

At this juncture, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Pettai Police Station is a congested area, which is not in dispute. No prejudice would be caused by allowing the petitioner to halt and take reversal at Tirunelveli Town, since the served sector will not exceed the 4 kms. Therefore, he prays for directing the respondent to consider his representation, on merits and in accordance with law.

¶20

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the limited scope of relief sought for, this Court, without adverting into the merits of the matter, directs the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 27.08.2018 and pass appropriate orders, on its own merits and in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶21

The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

Assistant Registrar(Crl.Side)

¶24

/True Copy/

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-II)

¶26

¶27

¶28

The District Collector cum

¶29

Regional Transport Authority, Tirunelveli.

¶30

+1cc to Mr.T.Padmanabhan, Advocate in SR No.89214

¶31

+1cc to The Spl Government Pleader, SR No.89420

¶32

W.P.(MD)No.19921 of 2018

¶33

NM /SV/SAR II/15.11.18/2P/4C.

¶34

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

G. Ananth, S/O. Ganapathi, v. the District Collector Cum

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G. Ananth, S/O. Ganapathi, v. the District Collector Cum

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

S.P.Ramalakshmi Vs the Regional Transport

Tvl. Nagalaksmi Stores, Rep Vs the Commissioner of Commercial

M/S.Cauvery Electronics Vs the Commissioner of

J.Selvaraj Vs the Commissioner of Police

C.Sundararaju, Vs the Regional Transport Officer

G.R.Harwares, Rep.by Its Vs the State of Tamil Nadu