Dismissed

Sundaravadivel.R v. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal

Madras HC25 Feb 2021WP(MD)/924/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai bench of the Madras High Court held that a writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable against an order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, as per the Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India. The Court disposed of the petition as not maintainable and directed the filing of a Civil Revision petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable; the petitioner was directed to file a Civil Revision petition.

Sundaravadivel.R Vs The State Transport Appellate… — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

1 W.P.(MD)NO.924 OF 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 25.02.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶5

W.P.(MD)No.924 of 2021 and W.M.P.(MD)No.782 of 2021

R.Sundaravadivel

... Petitioner

Vs.

The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, High Court Campus, Chennai.

¶10

The Regional Transport Authority, Dindigul District, Dindigul District.

¶11

The Secretary,

¶12

The Regional Transport Authority cum District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul District.

¶13

M.Parameswaran, S/o.D.Mayandi, Proprietor, Sri Hari Velmurugan Transport, 15, Municipalayam,

¶14

Harvey Nagar, Madurai. ... Respondents

¶15

Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order passed by the first respondent in Motor Vehicle Appeal petition No.34 of 2018 dated 08.12.2020 cancelling the permit in R.No.045462/A3/2017 dated 13.12.2017 in respect of route 1) Periyakulam to Madurai (via Batlagundu), 2) Periyakulam to Theni and 3) Theni to Dindigul(via Periyakulam) issued by the second respondent and quash the same and direct the second respondent to allow the petitioner to continue with said permit.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.N.S.Karthikeyan For R-1 to R-3 : Mr.G.Arjunan, Government Advocate. For R-4 : Mr.T.Padmanabhan

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶19

It has been held already that writ petition will not lie against the order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶20

1/2

¶21

2 W.P.(MD)NO.924 OF 2021

¶22

in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2018) 15 SCC Page No.356 (Life Insurance Corporation of India V. Nadhini J.Shah and others).

¶23

This writ petition is disposed of as not maintainable because, Civil Revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India will lie.

¶24

Registry is directed to return the impugned order in original to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner immediately, after the same is substituted by the photocopy.

¶25

It is of course open to the petitioner to file Civil Revision petition immediately thereafter. I make it clear that I have not gone into the merits of the matter. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶26

Assistant Registrar (CO)

¶27

// True Copy //

¶28

/ /2021

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶30

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.

¶31

To:

¶32

The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, High Court Campus,Chennai.

¶33

The Regional Transport Authority, Dindigul District,Dindigul District.

¶34

The Secretary, The Regional Transport Authority cum District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul District.

¶35

+1 CC to M/s.N.S.KARTHIKEYAN, Advocate ( SR-7467[F] dated 26/02/2021 ) +1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-7511[F] dated 26/02/2021 )

¶36

W.P.(MD)No.924 of 2021 25.02.2021

¶37

KB(26.02.2021) 2P 6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶38

2/2

Sundaravadivel.R v. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sundaravadivel.R v. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.a.M.Mines and Minerals Vs the Director of Geology and Mining

Sridhar.v Vs the Regional Transport Authority

M/s.D.Y.Beathelenterprises Vs the State Tax Officer (Data Cell)

Vinothkumar Vs The Inspector of Police

Tvl.a.R.a.S.Appliances (P) Ltd., Vs the Asst.Commissioner(St)

Adani Enterprises Ltd. Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Customs ( Drawback )