Dismissed

Arul Jothi v. The Regional Transport Authority

Madras HC19 Mar 2024WP(MD)/6562/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitions sought mandamus to accept applications and grant contract carriage permits for share autorickshaws. Respondents submitted the applications had already been rejected by order dated 05.12.2023, though communication was returned undelivered. Petitions were dismissed with directions to furnish the rejection order.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to furnish a copy of the rejection order dated 05.12.2023 to the petitioners.

Arul Jothi Vs The Regional Transport Authority — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD)Nos.6562 to 6564 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 19.03.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

W.P.(MD)Nos.6562 to 6564 of 2024

Arul Jothi

M.Naga Pandiyan

Saravanan

... Petitioner in WP(MD) No.6562/2024 ... Petitioner in WP(MD) No.6563/2024 ... Petitioner in WP(MD) No.6564/2024

¶11

Vs.

¶12

1.The Regional Transport Authority, Collectorate, Karur.

¶13

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

¶14

... Respondents in all Wps

¶15

1/5

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.(MD)Nos.6562 to 6564 of 2024

¶18

Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent herein to accept the applications of the petitioners, dated 24.11.2023 and grant the contract carriage permit for the petition mentioned share autorikshaws.

¶19

For Petitioners : Mr.J.Nanthakumar For Respondents : Mrs.D.Farjana Ghoushia, Special Government Pleader (In all WPs)

¶20

COMMON ORDER

¶21

These writ petitions are filed for a Mandamus, directing the

¶22

second respondent herein to accept the applications of the petitioners, dated 24.11.2023 and grant the contract carriage permit for the petition mentioned share autorikshaws.

¶23

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

¶24

Pleader takes notice for the respondents and submits that the applications submitted by the petitioners were considered by the

¶25

2/5

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.(MD)Nos.6562 to 6564 of 2024

¶28

respondents and rejected by order dated 05.12.2023. She further submits that this order has also been communicated to the petitioners through registered post. However, it was returned as ''no such addressee''.

¶29

3.Recording the submission made by the learned Special Government Pleader, these writ petitions are dismissed. The respondents are directed to furnish a copy of the rejection order to the petitioners, enabling them to challenge the order dated 05.12.2023 in the manner known to law, if they are aggrieved. No costs.

¶30

19.03.2024

¶31

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

¶32

3/5

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.(MD)Nos.6562 to 6564 of 2024

¶35

¶36

The Regional Transport Authority, Collectorate, Karur.

¶37

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

¶38

4/5

¶39

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

¶40

W.P.(MD)Nos.6562 to 6564 of 2024

¶41

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶42

vrn

¶43

Common Order made in W.P.(MD)Nos.6562 to 6564 of 2024

¶44

19.03.2024 (2/2)

¶45

5/5

¶46

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

Arul Jothi v. The Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arul Jothi 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

T.Murugesan, Vs Mukkulathore Kalvi Kuzhu

Mohan Raj Vs The Regional Transport Authority

Kamalakannan Vs The Additional Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)

Sakhla .N.M Vs The Tamil Nadu Waqf Board

Boominathan Vs The District Collector

Sathiya Bhavani. K Vs The Regional Transport Authority