Disposed

K.Kirubakar v. The Regional Transport Authority

Madras HC16 Mar 2020WP(MD)/16760/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the respondents' inaction regarding a petitioner's request to extend a mini bus route. The respondents argued only the State Transport Corporation could extend the route. The Court issued a mandamus directing the authority to pass an order after due process.

What did the court decide?

Mandamus issued directing the respondents to pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's representation by 03.04.2020 after following due process.

K.Kirubakar Vs The Regional Transport Authority — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.16760 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 16.03.2020 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN W.P.(MD) No.16760 of 2019

¶4

K.Kirubakar

¶5

1.The Regional Transport Authority, Thanjavur District.

¶6

2.The Regional Transport Officer, Kumbakonam.

¶7

... Respondents

¶8

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents herein to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's representation dated 06.03.2019, to permit the petitioner's Mini Bus TN-68/C-6372 to ply up to Thirumanur, while plying on the route “Anaikudi Sathunavukoodam to Kuchipalayam, Pasupathi Kovil” in terms of Section 72 (2) (xxii) of M.V. Act, 1988, forthwith.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Hariharan

¶10

For Respondents : Mr.V.Anand Government Advocate

¶11

ORDER

¶12

The petitioner viz., K.Kirubakar, who holds a Mini Bus permit, issued by the respondents viz., the Regional Transport Authority, Thanjavur District and the Regional Transport Officer, Kumbakonam for the route Anaikudi Sathnunavu Koodam to Kuchipalayam Pasupathi Kovil, with respect to the Vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-68/C-6372, had given a representation to the District Collector, Thanjavur on 06.03.2019, by which, the petitioner has claimed extension of the route to Thirumanur Village, since according to the petitioner, there were several requests from the people in Thirumanur Village to extend the Mini bus services, now run by the petitioner.

¶13

A notice had been directed to the respondents and an internal communication had been forwarded to this Court by the learned Special Government Pleader, wherein, it had been stated by the Regional Transport Authority viz., the first respondent herein that the extension of such service can be done only by the said transport viz., the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Kumbakonam Limited, at Kumbakonam.

¶14

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

¶15

1/2

¶16

W.P.(MD) No.16760 of 2019

¶17

In view of this stand in the internal communication, the petitioner has to be informed as to the stand taken by the respondents. Therefore, a Mandamus is issued to the respondents to pass orders on the representation given by the petitioner, after following due process. The first respondent may pass appropriate orders on or before 03.04.2020.

¶18

With the above observations, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶19

Sd/-

¶20

Assistant Registrar (co)

¶21

// True Copy //

¶22

/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶23

Tsg

¶24

¶25

1.The Regional Transport Authority, Thanjavur District.

¶26

2.The Regional Transport Officer, Kumbakonam.

¶27

+1 CC to Mr.K.HARIHARAN, Advocate ( SR-11831[F] dated 16/03/2020 ) +1 CC to SPL.GP ( SR-12032[F] dated 17/03/2020 )

¶28

W.P.(MD) No.16760 of 2019 16.03.2020

¶29

VB(23.03.2020) 2P 5C

¶30

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

¶31

2/2

K.Kirubakar v. The Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Kirubakar v. The Regional 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

Matchakalai Vs the Superintending Engineer

Gnanasekaran Vs the Revenue Divisionalofficer

I.Edwin Jose Vs The Colachel Municipality

S.Peter Raj Vs the District Registrar of Societies

A.K.Sivasankaran, Vs the District Collector

T.Shanmugasundaram Vs K.v.v.G.Diwakar, I.R.S