Disposed

Sri Kumaran Driving School v. The State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC28 Oct 2020WP/15000/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the petitioner to submit a fresh representation. The respondents were instructed to consider the representation and pass orders within four weeks, maintaining status quo until then.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit fresh representation; respondents directed to pass orders within four weeks; status quo maintained.

Sri Kumaran Driving School Vs The State of Tamilnadu — Education and Admissions | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 28.10.2020

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶5

W.P.No.15000 of 2020

¶6

and WMP Nos.18668 & 18670 of 2020

¶7

Sri Kumaran Driving School, Proprietor : P.Kumar 1/287, Ayapillai Kadu, Sikkanampatti, Periakadampatti Post, Omalur Taluk, Salem District.

¶8

… Petitioner -Vs-

¶9

1 The State of Tamil Nadu rep by its Principal Secretary, Home (Transport) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9 2 The Commissioner of Transport Chepauk, Chennai-5 3 The Regional Transport Officer Salem (West) – 5. … Respondents

¶10

Prayer : Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the order of the 1^st respondent dated 05.08.2010 in G.O.Ms. No.697 Home (Transport - 5) Department and consequential order of the 2^nd respondent dated 17.6.2015 in R. No.22370/ H1/ 2008 and quash the same, only in so far as it relates to the petitioner is concerned.

¶11

On consent given by either side, the main writ petition itself has been taken up for final hearing.

¶12

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order of the first respondent dated 05.08.2010 and the consequential order passed by the second respondent dated 17.06.2015.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ issue involved in the present case is sufficiently covered by

¶14

the earlier orders passed by this Court. Learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court the latest order passed by this Court in W.P.No.1462 of 2018 dated 24.01.2018. The relevant portion of the order is extracted hereunder.

¶15

“ The petitioner is aggrieved by the order issued by the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.697, Home (Transport-5) Department dated 05.08.2010 and consequential order of the second respondent dated 17.06.2015. The issue involved in this case pertains to conducting of the training programmes to the driving schools, which is restricted by the impugned Government Order only to the Government Institutions, not to the Private Institutions.

¶16

Both sides submitted that the said issue was considered by this Court in similar writ petition and an order was passed directing the petitioner therein to give a representation to the respondents and consequently directing the respondents to pass orders on such representation. One such order passed in WP.No.38850 of 2016 dated 08.11.2016 is placed before this Court. It is further seen from the said order that an order of status quo was also granted in favour of the petitioner therein, till the disposal of the representation, to be filed by the petitioner therein. Both sides agreed that the same order can be passed in this matter also.

¶17

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of, by granting liberty to the petitioner to give a representation to the respondents within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such representation, the respondents shall consider the same and pass orders within a period of four weeks thereafter. Till an order is passed in the said representation, the respondents shall maintain status quo as on today. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. ”

¶18

Heard Mr.S.N.Parthasarathi, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents.

¶19

A careful reading of the earlier order passed by this Court shows that this Court has directed the concerned petitioners to give a fresh representation and the respondents have been directed to consider the same and pass fresh orders. A similar direction can be given in the present writ petition also.

¶20

In view of the above, the petitioner is directed to give a fresh representation to the first and second respondents within a period of two weeks from the date of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of such

¶21

representation, the respondents 1 and 2 shall consider the representation strictly in accordance with law and pass orders within four weeks thereafter. Till the final orders are passed on the representation to be given by the petitioners, the respondents are directed to maintain status quo as on date.

¶22

The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶23

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS III)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
lpp
To
1 The Principal Secretary,
Home (Transport) Department
Fort St. George, Chennai-9
2 The Commissioner of Transport
Chepauk Chennai-5
3 The Regional Transport Officer
Salem (West) – 5.
+1cc to Mr.K.Hariharan , Advocate SR.No. 34844
+1 cc to Government Pleader Sr.No. 35045
WP No.15000 of 2020
and
WMP Nos.18668 and 18670 of 2020
sra co
A.SK(05/11/2020)

¶24

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

Sri Kumaran Driving School v. The State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Kumaran Driving School v. The State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammed Elias Vs The Chairman

S.Sivaraj Vs The Member Secretary

G.Srikumar Vs The Inspector General of Registration

R.Jayalakshmi Vs The State Election Commissioner

S.Ravindiran Vs the State Rep by Its

E.S.Amarnath Vs The Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R. Medical university