This writ petition sought a mandatory writ to direct authorities to permit a route variation for a mini bus permit. The court held that after a prior direction to consider the request, the respondents were obligated to pass speaking orders on the merits.
Respondents directed to pass orders on petitioner's representation on merits within four weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(MD)No.2290 of 2021
Selvi
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 03.03.2021 CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P.(MD)No.2290 of 2021 and W.M.P.(MD)No.1910 of 2021
... Petitioner
-Vs-
1.The Regional Transport Authority, Thanjavur District, Thanjavur.
2.The Secretary, The Regional Transport Authority, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District.
... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner's mini bus bearing Registration No.TN 49 R 5612 on the diverted route from Kumbakonam Bus Stand via Railway Station, Nell Road, Chettimandabam, Pillayampettai Main Road, Ammachathiram, Thirubuvanam, Thiruvidaimaruthur, Thiruvidaimaruthur Theradi, Vannakudi and Maruthuvakudi to reach its termination place at Aduthurai Agriculture Farm instead of Pillayampettai Pirivu via Army Street.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sankar For Respondents : Mr.M.Rajarajan Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel on either side.
2.The petitioner seeks variation of the route set out in his permit. In this regard, he filed W.P.(MD)No.4736 of 2011. Vide order dated 29.04.2011, this Court directed the authorities to consider the petitioner's request and pass orders. It appears that no order was passed pursuant to the said direction. The petitioner also did not file any contempt petition. Instead, she has chosen to file a second writ petition.
3.This Writ Petition is opposed by the respondents who have filed the counter affidavit. When an application has been given and when it has been directed by this Court that the orders should be passed thereon, the respondent has to necessarily pass a speaking order considering the petitioner's request.
1/2
W.P.(MD)No.2290 of 2021
4.Therefore, the respondents are directed to pass orders on the petitioner's representation dated 03.12.2020 on merits and in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. I make it clear that I have not gone into the merits of the matter. It is open to the authorities to pass orders one way or other.
5.This Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Assistant Registrar (CSII)
// True Copy //
/ /2021
Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)
Note :In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
To
1.The Regional Transport Authority, Thanjavur District, Thanjavur.
2.The Secretary, The Regional Transport Authority, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District.
W.P.(MD)No.2290 of 2021 03.03.2021
TP(CO) KB(23.04.2021) 2P 3C
2/2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the respondents, who had been directed earlier to consider the petitioner's request for a route variation, failed to pass speaking orders despite the representation.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Selvi
The Regional Transport Authority, Thanjavur District
The Secretary, The Regional Transport Authority, Kumbakonam
G.R.Swaminathan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
