Disposed

Nilgiri Youth Tourists Taxi Drivers v. the Chief Secretary / Transport Commissioner

Madras HC15 Jul 2024WP/18385/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Taxi owners' association sought consideration of its representation regarding auto-rickshaws plying beyond the permitted 15 km radius in the Nilgiris District. The Government clarified that autos may ply 15 km from parking and return, totalling 30 km up and down. Recording this, the court disposed of the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of recording respondents' clarification dated 27.05.2024 that auto-rickshaws may ply up to 15 km radius and return (30 km total); connected miscellaneous petition closed; no cos

Nilgiri Youth Tourists Taxi Drivers Vs the Chief… — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.18385 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 15.07.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

¶6

W.P.No.18385 of 2024

¶7

Nilgiri Youth Tourists Taxi Drivers and Owners Welfare Association, represented by its President, Deepak S/o Stephen, 215, Bandishola, Ooty, The Nilgiris

¶8

...Petitioner

¶9

¶10

1.The Chief Secretary/Transport Commissioner, Transport Department, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai.

¶11

2.The District Collector, Udhagamandalam, The Nilgiris-643007.

¶12

3.The Regional Transport Officer, Coonoor Road, Udhagamandalam, The Nilgiris- 643 007.

¶13

4.The Auto Drivers Association Cum-Owners Welfare Association, Udhagamandalam, The Nilgiris-643 007. ...Respondents

¶14

Page No:1/7

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.No.18385 of 2024

¶17

PRAYER:

¶18

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus to consider the representation dated 10.04.2024 made to the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents' authorities.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Dinuprashanth For Respondents : Mr.M.Venkateswaran for R1 to R3 Special Government Pleader

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This writ petition has been filed to consider the representation dated 10.04.2024 made to the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents and authorities.

¶22

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a registered association and the members of the association are owners of taxis running in the District of Nilgiris for their livelihood. In the said District,

¶23

the tourists are dependent on the taxis as their mode of transport. In addition to the taxis, there are auto-rickshaws which are also dependent on tourism for their source of livelihood. On account of giving trial, the 3^rd respondent department have given a permit to the three wheeler carriage to cover a distance of 15kms from the place of parking.

¶24

(ii). The grievance of the petitioner association is that the 4^th

¶25

Page No:2/7

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.No.18385 of 2024

¶28

respondent association members have been violating the permit granting for plying the vehicles and as a result, affecting the livelihood of the petitioner. The 4^th respondent association members are illegally plying the three wheelers over and above the permitted limit by taking advantage of the vagueness in the permit radius granted. The petitioner association had approached the 4^th respondent requesting them not to ply over and above the permitted limit. In turn, the 4^th respondent had communicated to the respondent authorities that they had orally extended the permit limit from 15kms to 30 kms. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner made representation to the 2^nd and 3^rd respondent requesting to take appropriate steps, but the same has not been considered by the respondent authorities. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶29

3.Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the permissible limit for plying three-wheelers in the hilly regions is only 15kms from the place of parking area. However, the distance is inclusive of both ways is not mentioned, which creates a confusion. On 07.03.2024, the 4^th respondent informed orally that the permit to ply the three wheeler has been increased to 30 kms radius from 15km radius and

¶30

Page No:3/7

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.No.18385 of 2024

¶33

as a result, the auto-rickshaws carrying tourists to several places like waterfalls in the reserve forest area without safety and the same is also in violation of the carrying capacity of the vehicle will create risk to the passengers who are traveling in it. Hence, he seeks a direction.

¶34

Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that the Autorickshawas in the Nilgiris District are permitted to operate for a 15 km radius from the parking place. Further, on 14.03.2024, a meeting was held with Auto Drivers Association and the requisition of the Auto Drivers Association to increase the operating limit of Auto rickshaws from 15 km to 30 km was rejected and it was made clear that the auto rickshaws in the Nilgiris District can be operated within the radius of 15 km from the place of parking of the vehicle and if any violation, action will be taken as per law. Therefore, the auto rickshaws are not allowed to travel beyond 15km radius from the parking area and if they violates the said rule, appropriate action will be taken on the concerned Autorickshaw Drivers.

¶35

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

¶36

Page No:4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

W.P.No.18385 of 2024

¶38

learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent and this Court had perused the materials available on record.

¶39

Admittedly, the grievance of the petitioner/association is

¶40

that the permissible limit for plying three-wheelers in the hilly regions is only 15kms from the place of parking area. However, the distance is inclusive of both ways is not mentioned, which creates a confusion among the petitioner-association as well as to the 4^th respondent-Auto Drivers Association. In this regard, the petitioner association made a representation dated 10.04.2024 to the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents herein to clarify about the distance whether that 15kms radius is only for onward direction or for both onward and return to the parking area.

¶41

Considering the facts and circumstances, the

¶42

communication produced by the learned Special Government Pleader in Na.Ka.No09837/E1/2024 dated 27.05.204, wherein it is stated that the auto rickshaws in the Nilgiris District can be operated within the radius of 15 km from the place of parking of the vehicle and if any violation, action

¶43

will be taken as per law. It is also made clear that the Auto rickshaws can

¶44

Page No:5/7

¶45

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

¶46

W.P.No.18385 of 2024

¶47

ply from the parking area upto the radius of 15kms and come back to the same destination, in total up and down the auto rickshaws are permitted to ply for 30kms.

¶48

Recording the above communication dated 27.05.2024,

¶49

this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶50

15.07.2024

¶51

Index:Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order msv

¶52

To 1.The Joint Commissioner HR & CE, Erode District.

¶53

2.The Executive Officer Arulmigukariyakali Amman Thirukovil, Periyamanali, Thiruchengodu Taluk, Namakkal District

¶54

Page No:6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶55

W.P.No.18385 of 2024

¶56

V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN ,J.

¶57

msv

¶58

W.P.No.18385 of 2024

¶59

15.07.2024

¶60

Page No:7/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Nilgiri Youth Tourists Taxi Drivers v. the Chief Secretary / Transport Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nilgiri Youth Tourists Taxi Drivers v. the Chief Secretary / Transport Commissioner

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

Tedi India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mr.a.Shanmuga Sundaram, I.A.S.

M.Ravikumar Vs the Regional Transport Officer

P.Rajalakshmi Vs the District Collector

R.Sivaguru Vs the Joint Commissioner

K.Shankar Vs the Joint Commissioner

Amrin Banu Vs the Regional Transport Officer