Disposed

A.Anbalagan v. The State Transport Authority

Madras HC9 Jan 2019WP/142/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the respondent State Transport Authority to consider a 2016 application for a contract carriage permit and pass a decision on merits within six weeks after receipt of the order copy.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the State Transport Authority to consider the petitioner's application for a contract carriage permit and pass suitable orders on merits within six weeks.

A.Anbalagan Vs The State Transport Authority — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 09.01.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

W.P.No.142 of 2019

A.Anbalagan

...Petitioner

Vs.

The State Transport Authority, Chepauk,

¶10

Chennai-600 005. ... Respondent

¶11

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of MANDAMUS, directing the respondent to pass orders on the petitioner's application dated 22.08.2016 for the grant of a contract carriage permit forthwith.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Natesan

¶13

For Respondent : Mr.R.Govindasamy Special Government Pleader

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondent to pass orders on the petitioner's application dated 22.08.2016 for the grant of a contract carriage permit forthwith.

¶16

2.According to the petitioner, he submit the application to the respondent on 22.08.2016 for grant of a contract carriage permit. Thereafter, the respondent call for remarks from the Regional Transport Officer, Ambattur, by proceeding dated 26.10.2016 asking for specific report about his application. But, so far no order was passed on the petitioner's application, hence, the present writ petition.

¶17

3.Mr.R.Govindasamy, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent on instructions submitted that the respondent pass suitable orders within a period of 12 weeks.

¶18

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

¶19

4.Considering the fact that the petitioner's application is pending before the respondent from the year,2016, the respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's application and pass suitable orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶20

5.With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed off.

rrg

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

//True Copy//

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

¶27

The State Transport Authority, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.

¶28

+1cc to Mr.R.Natesan, Advocate, S.R.No.2553 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.2737

¶29

Kak(13/03/2019)

¶30

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

A.Anbalagan v. The State Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Anbalagan v. The State Transport Authority

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

V.Lakshmi Narasimhan, Vs The State Transport Authority

The Secretary, Vs The Secretary to Government

M.Chinnathambi Vs The Secretary

M.S.Palani Vs The Regional Transport Officer

A.Anbalagan Vs The State Transport Authority

D.Subbulakshmi Vs The Additional Director