Allowed

Amudha Senthil v. the Regional Transport

Madras HC3 Apr 2018WP(MD)/7127/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought a mandate to re-commence specific bus routes to address safety concerns for women. The court directed the Regional Transport Authority to consider the petitioner's representation and pass orders on merits within four weeks before dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

Directed the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders within four weeks.

Amudha Senthil Vs the Regional Transport — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 03.04.2018

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.BASHEER AHAMED

¶7

W.P.[MD].No.7127 of 2018

Amudha Senthil

: Petitioner

Vs.

The Regional Transport Authority/ District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶12

The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Bye-pass Road, Madurai Region, Madurai District. : Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to take immediate steps to re-commence the buses that were plying from Anna Bus Stand to Karuppatti and Nachikulam, Mattuthavani to Solavanthan, Alanganallur and Arapalayam via Mathichiyam under the Goripalayam Bridge touching the Vaigai Vadakarai.

¶14

For petitioner : M/s.Chamundi Bose For respondent No.1 : Mr.A.Muthukaruppan Additional Government Pleader

¶15

For Respondent No.2 : Mr.A.P.Muthupandian

Standing Counsel

O R D E R

***************

[ Order of the Court was made by C.T.SELVAM, J.]

¶20

Mr.A.Muthukaruppan, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice on behalf of the first respondent and Mr.A.P.Muthupandian, learned Standing Counsel, takes notice on behalf of the second respondent.

¶21

Expressing certain difficulties faced particularly by women, owing to stoppage of bus services, resulting in residents of Mathichiyam, Goripalayam, Madurai, having to walk a distance of half a kilometre during night hours to board the bus, the petitioner made a representation dated 07.03.2018 before the first respondent. Since no action has been taken, the petitioner has come up with this Writ Petition.

¶22

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

¶23

¶24

Considering the limited plea of the petitioner, we direct the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 07.03.2018 and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶25

The Writ Petition is disposed of, with the above direction. No costs.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

Assistant Registrar(CS-II)

¶28

/True Copy/

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶30

¶31

The Regional Transport Authority/ District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶32

+1cc to M/s.Chamundi Bose, Advocate Sr.No.59419 +1cc to Spl.Government Pleader Sr.No.59680

¶33

¶34

VB/SKN/RSK/SAR1/23.04.2018/2P/4C

¶35

ORDER MADE IN W.P.[MD].No.7127 of 2018 03.04.2018

¶36

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

Amudha Senthil v. the Regional Transport

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amudha Senthil 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

S.Kamaraj @ Muthalakurichi Vs the District Collectior

Jengiskhan Vs the Inspector of Police

Sankar @ Jeyasankar @ Vs the Inspector of Police

V.Sathish Vs the District Collector and

M.Sivaranjani, D/O.Manickvel Vs the Principal Secretary to

R.Tamilchelvi, Vs the Prl.Secretary to Govt.