Disposed

S.Ravi, v. The Principal Secretary

Madras HC2 Apr 2019WP/9662/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition directing Transport authorities to restore discontinued bus routes between Vellore and Nagapattinam. The Court held it cannot specifically order the restoration of services but directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's representations within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directing Respondents No.2 and 3 to consider representations of the petitioner regarding restoration of bus services within four weeks.

S.Ravi, Vs The Principal Secretary — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 02.04.2019 CORAM:

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR and

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

¶5

W.P.No.9662 of 2019

¶6

S.Ravi ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.
1. The Principal Secretary,
Transport Department,
Secretariat,
St.George Port,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Managing Director,
Tamilnadu State Transport
Corporation (Vizhupuram) Ltd.,
Salamedu, Vizhupuram,
Vizhupuram District – 605 602.
3. The General Manager,
Tamilnadu State Transport
Corporation (Vizhupuram) Ltd.,
Sathuvachari, Vellore – 630 009. ... Respondents
PRAYER: The Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, praying in the nature of Writ of
Mandamus, to direct the 2 nd and 3 rd respondents to restore service
in route No.186A, 186B, and 186C running between Vellore and
Nagapattinam as operated earlier.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.Varadarajalu S.T.

¶9

For Respondents : Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan Government Pleader (I/c)

¶10

(Order of the Court was made by S.MANIKUMAR, J.)

¶11

Contending inter alia that bus route Nos.186A, 186B, and 186C operated earlier between Vellore and Nagapattinam from 2009 having not been operated from 2018, to restore the same,

¶12

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

¶13

the petitioner is stated to have made representations dated 16.02.2019 and 25.02.2019 respectively, to the District Collector and the respondents.

¶14

Contending further that discontinuation of operation of bus routes has affected public and representations made have not been considered so far, the instant Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus directing respondent Nos. 2 and 3 respectively to restore the above service.

¶15

On directions, Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan, learned Government Pleader, taking notice for the respondents submitted that operating buses between different places is the prerogative of the respondents.

¶16

Court cannot issue a specific direction that buses operated earlier and now discontinued, should once again be restored. Though the petitioner has sought for a Mandamus directing respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to operate buses in the aforesaid route, we are of view that suffice to direct respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to consider the representations of the petitioner, in accordance with law, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶17

With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶18

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-IV) //True copy// Sub Assistant Registrar

¶19

asi

¶20

The Principal Secretary, Transport Department, Secretariat, St.George Port, Chennai – 600 009.

¶21

The Managing Director, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Vizhupuram) Ltd., Salamedu, Vizhupuram, Vizhupuram District – 605 602.

¶22

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

¶23

The General Manager, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Vizhupuram) Ltd., Sathuvachari, Vellore – 630 009.

¶24

+1cc to Government Pleader SR.No.31682

¶25

+1cc to Mr.ST.Varadarajulu, Advocate SR.No.31824(29/08/2019)

¶26

W.P.No.9662 of 2019

¶27

SSD(CO) GMY(03/04/2019)

¶28

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

S.Ravi, v. The Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Ravi, v. The Principal Secretary

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

N.Pannagasayanan Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

N.Maragatham Vs Union Of India

R.Inbasekaran Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

A.Radhakrishnan, Vs The Chief Electoral Officer

J.Shanmugapriyadharsini Vs Chief Electroal Officer

Vijaya Bank, Regional Office, Vs The Chief Secretary