Allowed

R. Sundaravathanam, v. the Regional Transport

Madras HC17 Dec 2018WP(MD)/21194/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench set aside an order rejecting a stage carriage operator's request to enter the Thanjavur Old Bus Stand. The High Court held that a factual controversy existed regarding the distance and presence of another carrier. It directed the Authority to conduct an enquiry, hear all parties, and pass a final order within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; matter remanded to the first respondent to conduct an enquiry, fix hearing dates, and pass a final order within six weeks.

R. Sundaravathanam, Vs the Regional Transport — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 17.12.2018 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P.(MD)No.21194 of 2018 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.19041, 19042 and 19043 of 2018

¶4

R.Sundaravathanam ... Petitioner

¶5

¶6

1.The Regional Transport Authority, Office of the Regional Transport Authority, Thanjavur.

¶7

2.The Secretary, Office of the Regional Transport Authority, Thanjavur. ... Respondents

¶8

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the first respondent vide his proceedings in R.No.42096/B2/2011, dated 28.08.2018 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents allow Petitioner's Mini buses bearing Registration Nos.TN49AK 5893 and TN 49 AM 3080 (since replaced) to enter into the Thanjavur Old Bus Stand instead of Palliagraharam as per the Transport Commissioner's Circular in Letter R.No.90919/E2/2000 dated 29.11.2000.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.A.C.Asaithambi For Respondents : Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar Additional Government Pleader

¶10

ORDER

¶11

The writ petitioner is a Stage Carriage Operator, plying a mini bus from Kalancherry to Palliagraharam. The petitioner wants to enter into Thanjavur old bus stand. By the order impugned in the writ petition, the said request was rejected.

¶12

2.The case of the writ petitioner is that the distance between Palliagragaram and Thanjavur old bus stand is 4 Kms. But according to the respondents the distance is 4.6 Kms. The stand of the authority is that Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Kumbakonam has filed an application and that it is also presently operating in the sector. But this is denied by the writ petitioner.

¶13

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

¶14

3.Therefore, when there are such factual controversies, in the

¶15

¶16

very nature of things, an enquiry ought to have been conducted and the writ petitioner should have been heard. Only then, the writ petitioner could have placed the materials in support of his stand.

¶17

4.In as much as the impugned order came to be passed without

¶18

hearing the petitioner, I am constrained to set aside the same. The order impugned in this writ petition is setaside and this writ petition is allowed by remanding the matter to the file of the first respondent. The first respondent shall issue notice fixing enquiry date. The first respondent shall hear not only the petitioner but also the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Kumbakonam and final orders shall be passed on the petitioner's request on merits and in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶19

5.Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. No costs.

¶20

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶21

Sd/

¶22

Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶23

/True copy/

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-III)

¶25

¶26

1.The Regional Transport Authority, Office of the Regional Transport Authority, Thanjavur.

¶27

2.The Secretary,

¶28

Office of the Regional Transport Authority, Thanjavur.

¶29

3.The Transport Authority, Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation, Kumbakonam

¶30

+2cc to Mr.A.C.Asaithambi, Advocate, SR.No.100648

¶31

+1cc to M/s.Special Government Pleader,SR.No. 100916

¶32

W.P.(MD)No.21194 of 2018 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.19041, 19042 and 19043 of 2018 17.12.2018

¶33

PNN

¶34

KK/RSK/SAR-3/19.12.2018/2P-7C

¶35

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

R. Sundaravathanam, v. the Regional Transport

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R. Sundaravathanam, v. the Regional Transport

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

Amran Ibrahim, Vs the District Legal Services

M.Rathi, W/O.a.Murugan, Vs the Joint Commissioner of Hr

K.Vidya, W/O. Kumar, Vs the District Collector

P.Alagumugam, Vs the Director of Elementary-

Muthukrishnan Vs the Inspector of Police (L&O)

Shanthi Devi Ayyal, Vs the District Collector