Disposed

Mohan Raj v. The Regional Transport Authority

Madras HC18 Mar 2024WP(MD)/6542/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two writ petitions from auto-rickshaw operators challenging the rejection of their permit applications due to the exhaustion of the government-instituted 50-vehicle cap for the district. The High Court directed the authorities to consider the petitioners' cases in place of 16 lapsed permits within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider petitioners' cases in place of lapsed permits within six weeks.

Mohan Raj Vs The Regional Transport Authority — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD)Nos.6542 and 6543 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 18.03.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

W.P.(MD)Nos.6542 and 6543 of 2024

¶7

W.P.(MD)No.6542 of 2024

Mohan Raj

... Petitioner

versus

The Regional Transport Authority, Collectorate, Karur.

¶12

The Regional Transport Officer, The Regional Transport Office, Karur. ... Respondents

¶13

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 2^nd respondent herein to receive the application of the petitioner dated 24.11.2023 which was returned on 05.12.2023 and grant the contract carriage permit for the petition mentioned share auto-rickshaw.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Nanthakumar

¶15

1/7

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.(MD)Nos.6542 and 6543 of 2024

¶18

For Respondents : Mrs.D.Farjana Ghoushia, Special Government Pleader

¶19

W.P.(MD)No.6543 of 2024

Nagarathinam

... Petitioner

versus

The Regional Transport Authority, Collectorate, Karur.

¶24

The Regional Transport Officer, The Regional Transport Office, Karur.

¶25

... Respondents

¶26

¶27

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Nanthakumar

¶28

For Respondents : Mrs.D.Farjana Ghoushia, Special Government Pleader

¶29

2/7

¶30

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

¶31

W.P.(MD)Nos.6542 and 6543 of 2024

¶32

COMMON ORDER

¶33

The petitioners have submitted applications seeking Contract Carriage Permits for operating 5 seater auto-rickshaws in Karur District. But, the second respondent has returned the same stating that the Government has restricted the permit for 5+1 seating capacity share auto-rickshaws upto 50 in Karur District and as they have already given permit to 50 auto-rickshaws, additional permits cannot be given for 5 seater auto-rickshaws in Karur District. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions.

¶34

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that though 50 share auto-rickshaws have been granted permits, as on date, 34 share auto-rickshaws are running with permits and 16 autorickshaws have not renewed their permits and these permits have now been lapsed, in view of the provisions under Section 81(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

¶35

3/7

¶36

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

¶37

W.P.(MD)Nos.6542 and 6543 of 2024

¶38

The learned counsel for the petitioners, by relying on the information, which he obtained under the Right to Information Act from the Regional Transport Office, Karur, submits that as on date, 34 share auto-rickshaws alone are plying with valid permits and as per

¶39

G.O.Ms.No.277, Home (Transport – VI) Department, dated

¶40

22.03.2001, the second respondent can grant permit to 16 more 5 seater auto-rickshaws.

¶41

Mrs.D.Farjana Ghoushia, learned Special Government Pleader,

¶42

takes notice for the respondents and submits that they have already given permits to 50 auto-rickshaws and therefore, the applications of the petitioners cannot be considered in view of G.O.Ms.No.277, dated 22.03.2001. She further submits that though time limit has been prescribed under Section 81(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, as per Section 81(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the application for renewal of permit can be entertained on good and sufficient cause for the delay in

¶43

4/7

¶44

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

¶45

W.P.(MD)Nos.6542 and 6543 of 2024

¶46

filing the application.

¶47

This Court considered the rival submissions made.

¶48

As per G.O.Ms.No.277, Home (Transport-VI) Department, dated 22.03.2001, the Government has restricted the permits of 5 seater Auto-rickshaws at Chennai Metropolitan City and other areas as 100 and 50 respectively. The respondents claim that in Karur District, they

¶49

have already granted permits to 50 five seater auto-rickshaws.

¶50

The case of the petitioner is that as on date, 16 auto-rickshaws

¶51

have not renewed their permits. The petitioner has also collected some data under the Right to Information Act from the Regional Transport Officer, Karur District and it reveals that the permit of an AutoRickshaw bearing Reg.No.TN25D 1011 expired on 06.10.2017 and the same was not renewed for more than six years. Though the authority can condone the delay in submitting the applications for

¶52

5/7

¶53

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

¶54

W.P.(MD)Nos.6542 and 6543 of 2024

¶55

renewal of permits, as on date, the applications are not before the authority.

¶56

Therefore, these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners in the place of lapsed permits, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶57

18.03.2024

¶58

ogy NCC : Yes / No. Index : Yes / No. Internet : Yes / No.

¶59

¶60

The Regional Transport Authority, Collectorate, Karur.

¶61

The Regional Transport Officer, The Regional Transport Office, Karur.

¶62

6/7

¶63

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

¶64

W.P.(MD)Nos.6542 and 6543 of 2024

¶65

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶66

ogy

¶67

W.P.(MD)Nos.6542 and 6543 of 2024

¶68

18.03.2024

¶69

7/7

¶70

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

Mohan Raj v. The Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan Raj v. The Regional Transport Authority

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

Rajesh Vs The Deputy Superintendent of Police

B.Akash Vs The Secretary

Vandhana.B Vs The Secretary

R.Anandan, S/O.Ramar(Late) Vs the District Collector

T.Murugesan, Vs Mukkulathore Kalvi Kuzhu

Kamalakannan Vs The Additional Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)