V. Murugesan and Others Vs. the Regional Transport Authority Namakkal

V. Murugesan and Others vs The Regional Transport Authority Namakkal

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Oct 30, 2012

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/953748

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/953748
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: M. Jaichandren
Decided On: Oct 30, 2012
Case Number: Writ Petition Nos. 29267, 29268, 29269 & 29270 of 2012
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

V. Murugesan and Others

Advocate For the Petitioners: T. Padmanabhan, Advocate. For the Respondent: R. Ravichandran, Additional Government Pleader.

Respondent

The Regional Transport Authority Namakkal

Excerpt

(prayer: petition filed seeking for a writ of mandamus, directing the respondent herein viz, the regional transport authority, namakkal to implement the judgement of the state transport appellate tribunal made in a.no.41/2012 dated 3.08.2012 for the issue of 5 seater share auto permit.) 1. heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned additional government pleader appearing for the respondent. 2. at this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice, if the respondent is directed to dispose of the representation, dated 26.09.2012, on merits, within a specified period. 3. the learned additional government pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent has no objection for such an order being passed by this court. 4. in view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side, the respondent is directed to dispose of the representation, dated 26.09.2012, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. the petitioner is directed to furnish a copy of the representation, dated 26.09.2012, to the respondent, along with a copy of this order. however, it is made clear that this court, by this order, has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. the writ petition is disposed of accordingly. no costs.

Full Judgment

(Prayer: Petition filed seeking for a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent herein Viz, the Regional Transport Authority, Namakkal to implement the judgement of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal made in A.No.41/2012 dated 3.08.2012 for the issue of 5 Seater Share Auto Permit.)

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.

2. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice, if the respondent is directed to dispose of the representation, dated 26.09.2012, on merits, within a specified period.

3. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent has no objection for such an order being passed by this Court.

4. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side, the respondent is directed to dispose of the representation, dated 26.09.2012, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is directed to furnish a copy of the representation, dated 26.09.2012, to the respondent, along with a copy of this order. However, it is made clear that this Court, by this order, has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2012 Same Parties V. Murugesan and Others vs The Regional Transport Authority N... Same Subject Education Same Judge M. Jaichandren