Dismissed

Vandhana.B v. The Secretary

Madras HC15 Mar 2024WP(MD)/962/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Stage carriage operator challenged non-consideration of application for time schedule revision. Court dismissed petition, directing petitioner to re-file application in proper format with required fees within two weeks for processing.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed. Direction to petitioner to re-file application in prescribed format with required fee within two weeks. Respondent to process within three months.

Vandhana.B Vs The Secretary — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.962 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)No.962 of 2024

¶7

B.Vandhana ... Petitioner

¶8

¶9

The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Srirangam. ...Respondent

¶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 CD 2255 plying on the route Trichy to Thuraiyur (via) Manachanallur and Pulivalam.

¶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.962 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 CD 2255 plying on the route Tiruchirappalli to Thuraiyur. 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.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that instead of mentioning the Regional Transport Authority, Srirangam, it is mentioned as the Regional Transport Authority, Tiruchirappalli in the affidavit (cause title) and the same may be corrected.

¶18

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

¶19

for admission, the learned Special Government Pleader based on the

¶20

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

¶21

W.P(MD)No.962 of 2024

¶22

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 passed within a reasonable time, as per the instructions issued in Letter No.1352/Home(Tr-III) Department, dated 18.12.2003.

¶23

4.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 this order. On such filing of application by the petitioner, the respondent shall furnish the acknowledgment, shall process the same

¶25

3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

W.P(MD)No.962 of 2024

¶27

and pass necessary orders as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from thereon. Considering the submission made on behalf of the petitioner, the cause title is amended as ''The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Srirangam''. No costs.

¶28

15.03.2024 (2/2)

¶29

NCC:Yes/No Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes vrn To The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Srirangam.

¶30

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

¶31

W.P(MD)No.962 of 2024

¶32

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶33

vrn

¶34

Order made in W.P(MD)No.962 of 2024

¶35

15.03.2024 (2/2)

¶36

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

Vandhana.B v. The Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vandhana.B 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

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

B.Akash Vs The Secretary

A Sri Palahari Purushothama Ramanuja Jeeyar Mutt Vs The Joint Commissioner