Allowed

Meera v. Regional Transport Officer

Madras HC8 Jul 2022WP/2864/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought renewal of an auto-rickshaw permit. The respondent rejected the application, alleging a failure to follow the mandatory procedure of providing an opportunity of hearing under Section 81(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 26.11.2012 set aside and quashed; matter remanded to respondent for fresh consideration within eight weeks.

Meera Vs Regional Transport Officer — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

WP.No.2864 of 2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 08.07.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

¶6

W.P.No.2864 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013

¶7

Meera ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Regional Transport Officer, Dharmapuri District-636 705. .... Respondent

¶10

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the respondent dated 26.11.2012 in Order.No.67856/A4/12 and quash the same and direct the respondent to consider the application of the petitioner dated 1.4.2011 in relation to renewal of permit for auto rickshaw bearing Registration No.TN-29-AA1084 within the time fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Rameshvel For Respondent : Mr.P.Sanjai Gandhi Government Advocate

¶12

1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶13

WP.No.2864 of 2013

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

This writ petition is filed by the owner of the auto rickshaw

¶16

bearing Regn.No.TN-29-AA-1084 for renewal of permit. Her application was returned by the respondent on 20.04.2011 with a direction to the petitioner to cure the defect pointed out. The application was represented by the petitioner on 23.11.2012 with a delay of 600 days. Not being satisfied with the reasons assigned by the petitioner for condoning the delay, the respondent rejected the application by way of impugned order dated 26.11.2012. Aggrieved by the same, the writ petitioner has come up with this petition.

¶17

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent has not provided any opportunity of hearing as mandated under Section 81 Sub Section 4 Proviso 2 of Motor Vehicles Act. He also pointed out the specific grounds raised by the writ petitioner with regard to the failure of respondent to provide an opportunity.

¶18

The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent filed counter and the specific averments of the petitioner with regard to the failure of respondent to furnish opportunity to the petitioner has not been controventary in the counter. Hence, it is clear that the

¶19

2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

WP.No.2864 of 2013

¶21

impugned order was passed without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as mandated by Proviso to Sec.81(4) of Motor Vehicles Act. Hence, impugned order is violative of natural justice principles, which is inbuilt in the statute itself. Therefore, it deserves to be set aside.

¶22

Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order dated 26.11.2012. The matter is remanded back to the file of the respondent. The respondent is directed to consider the application of the petitioner afresh within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶23

08.07.2022

¶24

Index :Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order Vv

¶25

¶26

The Regional Transport Officer, Dharmapuri District-636 705.

¶27

S.SOUNTHAR, J.

¶28

3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

WP.No.2864 of 2013

¶30

¶31

W.P.No.2864 of 2013 and MP.No.1 of 2011

¶32

08.07.2022

¶33

4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Meera v. Regional Transport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meera v. Regional Transport Officer

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

S.421, Chennasamuthiram Vs The Deputy Registrar of

V.Rajarethinam Vs The Registrar of Coop. Society

S-425, Seeliyampatti Primary Vs The Deputy Registrar or

J.Ramakrishnan Vs The Deputy Registrar of

A.Parthiban, Vs the Deputy Registrar of

Coimbatore District Coconut Vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by