Disposed

M/S.Hanumanthalaya v. the Chairman

Madras HC19 Sept 2023WP/25885/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition seeking a direction for permit renewal in multiple states was disposed of. The High Court directed the Regional Transport Officer to consider the petitioner's representation and pass orders on merits within four weeks without adjudicating the merits of the claim.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 4th respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 05.07.2023 and pass appropriate orders on merits within four weeks.

M/S.Hanumanthalaya Vs the Chairman — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.25885 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 19.09.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

¶6

W.P.No.25885 of 2023

¶7

and

¶8

W.M.P.No.25325 of 2023

¶9

M/s. Hanumanthalaya Rep by Managing Partner, Mrs. R.D.Gomathy, No.41, S2, Adithya Apartments, Main Road, Ramalinga Nagar, Puducherry – 605 009.

¶10

... Petitioner

¶11

vs.

¶12

1.The Chairman, State Transport Authority, Puducherry

¶13

2.The Transport Commissioner, State Transport Authority, Puducherry

¶14

3.The Super-Intendent, State Transport Authority, Puducherry

¶15

4.The Regional Transport Officer, State Transport Authority, Puducherry

¶16

... Respondents

¶17

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶18

¶19

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

¶20

W.P.No.25885 of 2023

¶21

India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the Respondents to provide an option to the Petitioner as stipulated in Section 88(9) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in exercise of their powers vested under Section 18 of the Government to Union Territories Act, 1963 to apply and obtain permit to ply their vehicles in the states of Tamil Nadu, Telengana, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Kerala at a revised proportionate fee fixed by them.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.Udhayakumar.R

¶23

For Respondents : Mr.M.Nirmal Kumar Government Advocate (Pondicherry)

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

The petitioner herein seeks a direction to the respondents to provide

¶26

an option to the petitioner as stipulated under Section 88 (9) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in exercise of their powers vested under Section 18 of the Government to Union Territories Act, 1963 to apply and obtain permit to ply their vehicles in the States of Tamil Nadu, Telengana, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Kerala at a revised proportionate fee fixed by them.

¶27

The main grievance of the writ petitioner in the matter is that under

¶28

2/6

¶29

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

¶30

W.P.No.25885 of 2023

¶31

the new rules notified by Government in All India Tourist Vehicles (Permit) Rules, 2023, there is no option for the petitioner to confine their operation within two or more contiguous states as mentioned in Section 88 (9) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In this regard, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 05.07.2023 to 4^th respondent requesting him to consider the renewal of permit for plying vehicles through the states of Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, Karnataka and Telengana.

¶32

When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner confined his prayer by stating that if the 4^th respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 05.07.2023 and pass final orders on merits, he would be satisfied. The said statement is recorded.

¶33

4. Mr.M.Nirmal Kumar, learned Government Advocate (Pondicherry), appearing for the respondents submitted that the representation of the petitioner will be considered by the 4^th respondent in due course.

¶34

In view of the limited prayer made by the learned counsel appearing

¶35

for the petitioner, without going to merits of the claim of the petitioner, this

¶36

3/6

¶37

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

¶38

W.P.No.25885 of 2023

¶39

Court is inclined to direct the 4^th respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 05.07.2023 and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, within period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶40

With the above direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶41

19.09.2023

¶42

Index : Yes/No Speaking order:Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes/No dm

¶43

4/6

¶44

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

¶45

W.P.No.25885 of 2023

¶46

¶47

1.The Chairman, State Transport Authority, Puducherry

¶48

2.The Transport Commissioner, State Transport Authority, Puducherry

¶49

3.The Super-Intendent, State Transport Authority, Puducherry

¶50

4.The Regional Transport Officer, State Transport Authority, Puducherry

¶51

5/6

¶52

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

W.P.No.25885 of 2023

S.SOUNTHAR, J.

W.P.No.25885 of 2023

¶57

19.09.2023

¶58

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

¶59

6/6

M/S.Hanumanthalaya v. the Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Hanumanthalaya v. the Chairman

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

T.Manimegalai Vs the Joint Registrar / Managing Director

P.Kirubakaran Vs the Joint Registrar of Co-Operative

Mohammed Abusali Vs the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board

M.Lakshmanan Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

N.Krishnan Vs the Regional Transport Officer

M/S.Aatral Associates Vs the Block Development Officer