Dismissed¶30

The Transport Commissioner v. M.Nagarajan

Madras HC19 Feb 2025WMP(MD)/21459/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court Madurai Bench; condonation of delay 47 days; Section 5 Limitation Act; review application Order 47 Rule 1 & 2 r/w Section 114 CPC; rejected at SR stage; no representation for review petitioner; charge memo R.No.836/A3/2017; competent authority; Additional Secretary to Government Transport Department; Deputy Transport Commissioner Tirunelveli; writ of mandamus Article 226; WP.(MD) No.18211 of 2024; Transport Department disciplinary proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The Miscellaneous Petition seeking condonation of the 47 days' delay in filing the Review Application is dismissed, and the Review Application is rejected at the SR stage itself. ¶30

The Transport Commissioner Vs M.Nagarajan — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

WMP(MD). No.21459 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

¶3

Wednesday, the Nineteenth day of February Two Thousand and Twenty Five

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

¶6

WMP(MD). No.21459 of 2024 in Rev.Aplw.(MD) SR.NO.76718 of 2024

¶7

The Transport Commissioner O/o. the Transport Commissioner, Guindy Chennai

¶8

The Joint Transport Commissioner, O/o. the Joint Transport Commissioner, Madurai Region, Madurai, Madurai District.

¶9

The Deputy Transport Commissioner O/o. the Deputy Transport Commissioner, Tirunelveli, .. Petitioners/Petitioners

¶10

¶11

1 M.Nagarajan .. Respondent/Respondent

¶12

Prayer WMP(MD). No.21459 of 2024 :-

¶13

Writ Miscellaneous Petition filed under section 5 of Limitation Act, praying to condone the delay of 47 days in filing the above Review Petition against the order dated 01.08.2024 made in WP.(MD).No. 18211 of 2024.

¶14

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

¶15

1/4

¶16

WMP(MD). No.21459 of 2024

¶17

Prayer in Rev.Aplw.(MD) SR.NO.76718 of 2024:

¶18

Review Application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 & 2 r/w Section 114 of C.P.C., praying to Review the Order dated 01.08.2024 made in WP.(MD).No. 18211 of 2024.

¶19

Prayer in WP.(MD).No. 18211 of 2024:

¶20

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to pass final orders on the charge memo in R.No.836/A3/2017 dated 29.01.2018 within time frame fixed by this court.

¶21

ORDER:- This Miscellaneous Petition coming on for orders on this day and upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon perusing the earlier orders of this court, this Court made the following order:

¶22

There is no representation for the Review Petitioner.

¶23

On perusal of the Review Application, it is seen that the third respondent is

¶24

not the competent authority to pass any final orders on the charge memo dated 29.10.2019 and the final orders have to be passed by the Additional Secretary to the Government, Transport Department.

¶25

The order of this Court only stated that whatever order that can be passed by

¶26

the authority should be on merits. If the third respondent does not have any authority to pass the order, he can mention it in any order that he might pass in compliance of the direction. This can enable the petitioner to challenge the order or https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis if he is still aggrieved to take any proceedings as advised.

¶27

2/4

¶28

WMP(MD). No.21459 of 2024

¶29

In view of the limited relief granted and also in view of the observations made

¶30

in this miscellaneous petition to condone the delay of 47 days in filing the Review Application, this miscellaneous petition is dismissed. In the said circumstances, the Review Application is also rejected at the SR stage itself.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (CS-II)

¶33

// True Copy //

¶34

/03/2025 Sub Assistant Registrar ( CS-I / II / III / IV )

¶35

¶36