Disposed

M.Saravanan v. The Regional Transport Officer

Madras HC7 Dec 2023WP(MD)/28925/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a lorry cleaner who learned driving, filed a writ petition for a badge license. Govt. Advocate stated application lacked required documents. Court directed it disposed of the matter by ordering petitioner to furnish documents within one week.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to furnish required documents within one week; respondent to pass orders within one week thereafter.

M.Saravanan Vs The Regional Transport Officer — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.28925 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 07.12.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

W.P(MD)No.28925 of 2023

¶7

M.Saravanan ... Petitioner

¶8

¶9

The Regional Transport Officer, Regional Transport Office, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District. ...Respondents

¶10

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to issue badge licence to the petitioner by way of entertaining the petitioner's application in Application No. 3553906123, dated 13.09.2023, within a period as stipulated by this Court.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Atham Ali For Respondents : Mr.M.Ramesh Government Advocate O R D E R

¶12

The petitioner is working as a lorry cleaner and now he

¶13

learnt driving. In order to drive a transport vehicle, he need a badge license. Therefore, he applied for a badge license with the

¶14

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

¶15

1/4

¶16

W.P(MD)No.28925 of 2023

¶17

respondent Transport Office. However, the same has not been considered by the respondent. Therefore, he submitted a representation and filed this writ petition, directing the respondent to issue a badge license to this petitioner by considering his application

¶18

No.3553906123, dated 13.09.2023.

¶19

2.Mr.M.Ramesh, learned Government Advocate who

¶20

takes notice for the respondent submits that the petitioner has not

¶21

enclosed the required documents along with the application and therefore, the petitioner's application has not been processed. He

¶22

further submits that on production of the following documents, his

¶23

application would be considered within a reasonable time.

¶24

i. Individual's Application

¶25

ii. E-receipt

¶26

iii.Form of Application of Authorization to drive a transport vehicle (The applicant must possess Light Motor Vehicle Licence)

¶27

iv. Form V (Driving Certificate issued by a Driving School) v. Form XV issued by a driving School

¶28

vi. Police Verification Report

¶29

vii.Copy of Aadhar Card

¶30

viii.Application cum Declaration (Physical Fitness Certificate)

¶31

ix. School Certificate (Evidence for date of birth)

¶32

2/4

¶33

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

¶34

W.P(MD)No.28925 of 2023

¶35

3.Considering the rival submissions made and also considering the limited relief sought for by the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to furnish the above required documents to the respondent within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the respondent shall pass orders within a period of one week from thereon. No costs.

¶36

07.12.2023

¶37

NCC :Yes/No Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes vrn

¶38

To The Regional Transport Officer, Regional Transport Office, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District.

¶39

3/4

¶40

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

¶41

W.P(MD)No.28925 of 2023

¶42

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶43

vrn

¶44

Order made in W.P(MD)No.28925 of 2023

¶45

07.12.2023

¶46

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

M.Saravanan v. The Regional Transport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Saravanan v. The 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

Pudukottai Bar Association Vs the Secretary to Government

Singai Jinnah Vs the Executive Officer

S.Murugesan, Contractor, Vs the District Collector

The Secretary Vs The Director of School Education

B.Sadasivam, Vs the Commissioner of Land

P. Rajagopal Vs the District Collector