Disposed

M.Rajendran v. the State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC26 Feb 2024WP(MD)/8501/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court issued directions to various State Transport Corporation officials to explain violations of prescribed rules regarding express bus operations, such as lack of single entry/exit and fare display, and to reply within four months. The petition seeking criminal proceedings was disposed of based on these directions.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to reply to representations regarding compliance with transport rules within four months.

M.Rajendran Vs the State of Tamilnadu — Consumer Protection | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.8501 of 2018

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 26.02.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.8501 of 2018

M.Rajendran

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The State of Tamilnadu

¶11

Rep. by the Chief Secretary, Fort St.George,

¶12

Chennai - 600 009.

¶13

2.The Principal Home (Transport) Secretary,

¶14

Government of Tamilnadu,

¶15

Secretariat - Chennai - 600 009.

¶16

3.The Director General of Police

¶17

Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,

¶18

Chennai - 600 004.

¶19

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

¶20

_____________ Page 1 of 9_

¶21

W.P(MD)No.8501 of 2018

¶22

4.Additional Chief Secretary to

¶23

Government of Tamilnadu,

¶24

Transport Department,

¶25

Secretariat - Chennai - 600 009.

¶26

5.The Secretary

¶27

Transport Department,

¶28

Secretariat - Chennai - 600 009.

¶29

6.The Commissioner and State Transport Authority, Ezhilagam,

¶30

Chennai – 600 005.

¶31

7.The Managing Director

¶32

Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd., Railway Station Pudhu Road, Kumbakonam - 612 001.

¶33

8.The Managing Director

¶34

Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Vilupuram) Ltd., No.3/137, Salamedu, Valutha Redy Post, Vilupuram – 605602.

¶35

9.The Managing Director Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd., By-Pass Road, Madakkulam, Madurai - 10.

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 2 of 9_

¶37

W.P(MD)No.8501 of 2018

¶38

10.The Managing Director

¶39

Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Ltd., No.12, Ramakrishna Road Selam -7.

¶40

11.The Managing Director Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Coimbatore) Ltd., No.37, Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore - 43.

¶41

12.The Managing Director

¶42

Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Tirunelveli) Ltd., Tirunlveli District.

¶43

.. Respondents

¶44

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1 to 3 respondents to initiate the criminal proceedings against the Chairman and the Managing Directors of the concern Jurisdictional Transport Corporation namely, 1. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd., Kumbagonam 2. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Vilupuram) Ltd., Vilupuram 3. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd., Madurai 4. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Selam) Ltd., Selam 5. Tamil Nadu State

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 3 of 9_

¶46

W.P(MD)No.8501 of 2018

¶47

Transport Corporation (Coimbatore) Ltd., Coimbatore. 6. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Tirunelveli) Ltd., Tirunelveli and all the erring officials those and involved in the dereliction and everyday of continuos cheating, fabrication false information continued to deceive the public for unlawful gain, under the name and style branding as “Express” themselves. Without any authority of law concerned for the derelict and continued cheating, deceiving the public, just for getting the illegal gain.

¶48

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Rajendran - (Party-in-Person) For Respondents : Mr.J.Amjadkhan – for RR1, 2, 4 to 6

¶49

Government Advocate Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabakar – for R3

¶50

Additional Public Prosecutor

¶51

Mr.S.C.Herold Singh – for R7 Mr.P.Prabhakaran – for R8 Mr.A.Jeyaram – for R9

¶52

O R D E R

¶53

[Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble CHIEF JUSTICE]

¶54

According to the petitioner/party-in-person, the respondent Corporation is running the transport buses and they are terming as an

¶55

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

¶56

Page 4 of 9

¶57

W.P(MD)No.8501 of 2018

¶58

“Express”. If the bus in question is an express bus, then there has to be a single exit and entry. The respondents are not following the same. The restriction on number of stops in between the starting station and end station has also not been adhered to. The criteria is prescribed under the Rules as to the minimum distance between two stations. The same is also not followed. The fares are required to be displayed in each and every bus. However, the same has not been done.

¶59

The respondents are certainly required to abide by the provisions of the Act and Rules. Any deviation, therefore, shall attract penalty as contemplated under the provisions of the Act and Rules. The specific violations will have to be pointed out in that regard. The petitioner has already approached the respondents. The respondent authorities shall look into the representation of the petitioner and reply to the petitioner about the compliances made by the respondents. The said reply shall be given within a period of four months from today. Depending upon the reply, it is open for the petitioner to take further steps.

¶60

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 5 of 9_

¶61

W.P(MD)No.8501 of 2018

¶62

With the aforesaid directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶63

[S.V.G., C.J.] [G.I., J.] 26.02.2024 Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No RM

¶64

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 6 of 9_

¶65

W.P(MD)No.8501 of 2018

¶66

¶67

1.The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by the Chief Secretary, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

¶68

2.The Principal Home (Transport) Secretary, Government of Tamilnadu, Secretariat - Chennai - 600 009.

¶69

3.The Director General of Police Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Chennai - 600 004.

¶70

4.Additional Chief Secretary To Government of Tamilnadu, Transport Department, Secretariat - Chennai - 600 009.

¶71

5.The Secretary Transport Department, Secretariat - Chennai - 600 009.

¶72

6.The Commissioner and State Transport Authority, Ezhilagam, Chennai – 600 005.

¶73

7.The Managing Director

¶74

Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd., Railway Station Pudhu Road,

¶75

Kumbakonam - 612 001.

¶76

8.The Managing Director

¶77

Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Vilupuram) Ltd., No.3/137, Salamedu, Valutha Redy Post, Vilupuram – 605602.

¶78

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 7 of 9_

¶79

W.P(MD)No.8501 of 2018

¶80

9.The Managing Director Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd., By-Pass Road, Madakkulam, Madurai - 10.

¶81

10.The Managing Director Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Ltd., No.12, Ramakrishna Road Selam -7.

¶82

11.The Managing Director Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Coimbatore) Ltd., No.37, Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore - 43.

¶83

12.The Managing Director Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Tirunelveli) Ltd., Tirunlveli District.

¶84

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 8 of 9_

¶85

W.P(MD)No.8501 of 2018

¶86

THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE and G.ILANGOVAN , J.

¶87

¶88

W.P(MD)No.8501 of 2018

¶89

26.02.2024

¶90

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 9 of 9_

M.Rajendran v. the State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Rajendran v. the State of Tamilnadu

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

Cicily Vs Mariadhas

Claster Rex Vs Annline Nirmala

A.Ravichandran Vs Chrihsta Kumari

Ezhumalai Vs The District Collector

Senthilkumar v Vs The Secretary to Government

Thangaraj, Vs the District Collector