Disposed

V.Lakshmi Narasimhan, v. The State Transport Authority

Madras HC8 Jan 2019WP/416/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Ppetitioner challenged non-passing of order on his representation for tax exemption for an idling vehicle. Court directed the respondent to consider the application and pass orders within two weeks without going into merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent to consider the petitioner's pending application for tax exemption and pass orders within two weeks.

V.Lakshmi Narasimhan, Vs The State Transport Authority — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 08.01.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

W.P. No. 416 of 2019

V.Lakshmi Narasimhan

... Petitioner

Vs.
1. The State Transport Authority,
Chepauk,
Chennai – 600 005.
2. The Regional Transport Authority,
Chennai (South East),
Chennai. ... Respondents
PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the
respondents to accept the idle tax for the petitioners vehicle
bearing registration No.KL 09 0444 for the period from
27.11.2017 to 30.11.2018 with reference to the representation
dated 03.12.2018 of the petitioner to the first respondent.

¶9

The writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to accept the idle tax for the petitioners vehicle bearing registration No.KL 09 0444 for the period from 27.11.2017 to 30.11.2018 with reference to his representation dated 03.12.2018 of the petitioner to the first respondent.

¶10

The petitioner claims to be the owner of an omni bus bearing registration No.KL 09 M 0444. Originally, the permit stands in the name of the petitioner's father. After his death, permit was transferred in the name of the petitioner and renewal was also granted in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a representation before the first respondent seeking for tax exemption for the period, during which the

¶11

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

¶12

vehicle was not in use. That application is pending with the first respondent from 03.12.2018. But, so far no order has been passed in that application. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶13

Considering the limited prayer sought for in the writ petition, without going into the merits of the case, the first respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's application and pass suitable orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶14

With the above direction, the present Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶15

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CO)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
mrp
To
1. The State Transport Authority,
Chepauk,
Chennai – 600 005.
2. The Regional Transport Authority,
Chennai (South East),
Chennai.

¶16

+1cc to Mr. S.Govindaraman, Advocate, S.R.No.1695

¶17

W.P. No. 416 of 2019 GN(08/01/2019)

¶18

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

V.Lakshmi Narasimhan, v. The State Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Lakshmi Narasimhan, 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

K.Balakrishnan, Vs The District Collector

M.Kanakasundaram, Vs the Presiding Officer

A.Mariadass Vs the State

The Secretary, Vs The Secretary to Government

M.Chinnathambi Vs The Secretary

Y.P.Kaliyamoorthy Vs The Assistant General Manager