Dismissed

Loganayagi, v. The Secretary

Madras HC23 Feb 2024WP/6512/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition for declaration. The Court held that since the petitioner could have filed an appeal against the order dismissing a prior writ petition on similar grounds, the present petition was not maintainable and stands rejected.

What did the court decide?

Writ of Declaration prayed for by the petitioner is dismissed. The connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Loganayagi, Vs The Secretary — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.6512 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 23.02.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU

¶6

W.P.No.6512 of 2021 and W.M.P.No.7094 of 2021

¶7

L.Loganayagi Proprietor of Nila Agencies No.144, Kizh Street, Gengampattu, Japti Kariandal post, Chengam Taluk, Tiruvannamalai - 606702

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport & Highways, Transport Bhawan, 1, Parliament Street, New Delhi 110 001

¶11

The Division Engineer, Ministry of Road Transport & Highways, Tiruvannamalai 606 604

¶12

The Regional Officer, HPCL,Trichy Retail RO,MDSR Enclave, 2^nd floor, No.90, Bharatidasan Salai, Cantonment, Tamil Nadu, Tiruchirappalli, Trichy 620 001

¶13

The District Collector, Collectorate, Vengikkal, Tiruvannamalai 606 604

¶14

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

¶15

Page No.1 of 6

¶16

The District Additional Administrative Magistrate cum the District Revenue Officer, Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District 606 604

¶17

W.P.No.6512 of 2021

¶18

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District 606 604

¶19

The District Fire Department, Venikkal, Tiruvannamalai, Tamil Nadu 606 604

¶20

K.Azhagesan ... Respondents

¶21

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Declaration to declare that order passed by the third respondent in No.Mu.Mu.C3/27936/2019 dated 05.01.2021 as null and void and against the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and High Ways in No.RW/N.H.33023/19/99 – Do-III.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Aravind Raj For RR 1 -2 : Mr..Madana Gopal Rao, SPC For R-3 : Mr.M.Vijayan for M/ King & Patridge For RR 4, 6 & 7 : Mrs.C.Meera Arumugam Addl. Government Pleader For R-5 : Mr.G.Ilangovan, SPC For R-8 : Mr.J.Bharathiraja ******

¶23

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

¶24

___________ Page No.2 of 6_

¶25

W.P.No.6512 of 2021

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

(Order of the Court was made by J.NISHA BANU, J.,)

¶28

This writ petition has been filed seeking for a Writ of Declaration to declare that the order passed by the third respondent in No.Mu.Mu.C3/27936/2019 dated 05.01.2021 as null and void and against the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways in No.RW/N.H.33023/19/99 – Do-III.

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶30

Perusal of records show that the petitioner has earlier filed a writ petition in W.P.No.6217 of 2020 and this Court, by an elaborate order has dismissed the same on 19.11.2020 by holding that, 'an existing dealer cannot maintain a writ petition challenging the NOC issued for setting up a similar unit by another business and found that there is no merit in the writ petition'.

¶31

The writ petitioner has now filed the present writ petition stating that

¶32

the third respondent has misled this Court by stating that IRC Guidelines are

¶33

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

¶34

___________ Page No.3 of 6_

¶35

W.P.No.6512 of 2021

¶36

only applicable to National or State Highways but not to the Major District Roads (MDR Roads). If at all the petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Judge of this Court, the only remedy available to the petitioner will be to file an appeal against the said order. In the present case on hand, the petitioner instead of filing an appeal against the above said order, has filed the present writ petition which is not maintainable.

¶37

Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶38

23.02.2024

¶39

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Speaking order/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes / No sts

¶40

To:

¶41

The Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport & Highways, Transport Bhawan, 1, Parliament Street, New Delhi 110 001

¶42

The Division Engineer, Ministry of Road Transport & Highways, Tiruvannamalai 606 604

¶43

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

¶44

Page No.4 of 6

¶45

The Regional Officer, HPCL,Trichy Retail RO,MDSR Enclave, 2^nd floor, No.90, Bharatidasan Salai, Cantonment, Tamil Nadu, Tiruchirappalli, Trichy 620 001

¶46

W.P.No.6512 of 2021

¶47

The District Collector, Collectorate, Vengikkal, Tiruvannamalai 606 604

¶48

The District Additional Administrative Magistrate cum the District Revenue Officer, Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District 606 604

¶49

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District 606 604

¶50

The District Fire Department, Venikkal, Tiruvannamalai, Tamil Nadu 606 604

¶51

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ___________ Page No.5 of 6_

¶52

W.P.No.6512 of 2021

¶53

J.NISHA BANU, J.

¶54

sts

¶55

Order made in W.P.No.6512 of 2021

¶56

Dated: 23.02.2024

¶57

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ___________ Page No.6 of 6_

Loganayagi, v. The Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Loganayagi, v. The Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Kamaraj Vs The National Highway Authority of India

V.Senniappa Gounder Vs Kolandasamy

M/s.v.S.Indane Gramin Vitrak Vs The State level co-ordinator

Jeyaprakash Vs The Passport officer

Basheer Ahamed Vs The Passport officer

J.Jayachandran Vs The District Collector