Disposed

B.Akash v. The Secretary

Madras HC15 Mar 2024WP(MD)/960/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of the writ petition seeking direction to the RTO to consider the petitioner's application for changing the time schedule of his stage carriage. The petition was allowed with a direction to the petitioner to resubmit the application in the proper format with the required fee, after which the RTO was directed to process it expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Direction to petitioner to submit application afresh in prescribed format with fee; Respondent directed to process within three months.

B.Akash Vs The Secretary — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.960 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 15.03.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

W.P(MD)Nos.960 of 2024

¶7

B.Akash ... Petitioner

¶8

¶9

The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Trichy West, Trichy.

¶10

PRAYER:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to receive the petitioner's Application along with fee dated 27.11.2023 for the convenience of the timing conference in respect of his State Carriage bearing Registration no. TN 45 CC 4255 plying on the route Trichy to B.Mettur.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.A.C.Asaithambi For Respondent : Mrs.D.Farjana Ghoushia Special Government Pleader

¶12

1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶13

W.P(MD)No.960 of 2024

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

The petitioner is a stage carriage operator in Trichy

¶16

operating a Stage Carriage bearing Registration No.TN 45 CC 4255 plying on the route Tiruchirappalli to B.Mettur. For changing the time schedule for his vehicle, the petitioner has submitted an application, dated 27.11.2023 and filed this writ petition that his application was not considered by the respondent.

¶17

2.Today(15.03.2024), when this writ petition is taken up

¶18

for admission, the learned Special Government Pleader based on the written instructions submits that any application filed for revision of timings in respect of stage carriage has to be filed in a proper format along with the required fee. Here, in this case, the petitioner has not submitted the application in a proper format along with the required fees. In the event, if the petitioner submits the same in a proper format, it would be considered and necessary orders would be

¶19

2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

W.P(MD)No.960 of 2024

¶21

passed within a reasonable time, as per the instructions issued in

¶22

Letter No.1352/Home(Tr-III) Department, dated 18.12.2003.

¶23

3.Recording the submission made by the learned Special

¶24

Government Pleader that the petitioner has to submit the application in a proper format along with the required fee, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to submit the application afresh in a prescribed format along with the required fee within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of

¶25

this order. On such filing of application by the petitioner, the respondent shall furnish the acknowledgment, shall process the same and pass necessary orders as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from thereon. No costs.

¶26

15.03.2024 (1/2)

¶27

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

¶28

3/5

¶29

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

¶30

W.P(MD)No.960 of 2024

¶31

¶32

The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Trichy West, Trichy.

¶33

4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

W.P(MD)No.960 of 2024

¶35

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶36

vrn

¶37

Order made in W.P(MD)Nos.960 of 2024

¶38

15.03.2024 (1/2)

¶39

5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

B.Akash v. The Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Akash v. The Secretary

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

Tvl v Vairam Contractor Vs The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Tvl v Vairam Contractor Vs The Assistant Commissioner (St)

M/s. Growlam Office Private Limited Vs The Commissioner of Customs

Rajesh Vs The Deputy Superintendent of Police

Vandhana.B Vs The Secretary

A Sri Palahari Purushothama Ramanuja Jeeyar Mutt Vs The Joint Commissioner