K.P.Narasimalu v. Regional Transport

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 20.03.2017

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU W.P.No.6734 of 2017 K.P.Narasimalu ... Petitioner Vs.

The Regional Transport Authority, Chennai North Range, Ayanavaram, Chennai 600 023.

... Respondent Prayer:Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned proceeding in B3/76676/2015 dated 30.11.2015 issued by the respondent, quash the same and direct the respondent to renew permit of petitioner's Auto bearing Registration No. TN 01 AJ 3169. For Petitioner : Mr.K.V.Muthu Visakan For Respondent : Mr.Akhil Akbar Ali Government Advocate

O R D E R

The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of the respondent rejecting the request for renewal of the auto rickshaw permit.

2.Mr.Akhil Akbar Ali, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondent. By consent of parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

3.The respondent rejected the request of the petitioner for renewal of the auto permit only on the reason that the same came to be filed with a delay of 472 days. However, the fact remains that the petitioner has sought to explain such delay before the respondent by filing Medical Certificate, etc., to contend that his health reasons did not permit him to approach the respondent and file the application within the time.

4.Perusal of the impugned order would show that the respondent has not considered the reasons set out by the petitioner for such delay in detail and on the other hand, he has simply rejected the same, as such reason is not acceptable. 5.Under similar circumstances, this court has considered the other writ petition in W.P.No.44186 of 2016 and passed the order condoning such delay and directing the respondent to consider the request of the petitioner therein to renew the auto rickshaw permit. I find that similar order can be passed in this writ petition.

6.No doubt, the learned counsel for the respondent sought to raise an objection that the writ petition is filed with some delay, even though the order impugned in this writ petition was passed as early as on 30.11.2015.

7.Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a poor person and only bread winner of the family consisting of school going children and also the source of income for the family is only from plying the auto rickshaw, I am of the view that the interest of justice is required for condoning such delay in approaching this court as well.

8.Needless to say that when the respondent is having power to condone the delay and when the petitioner has also filed Medical Certificate in support of his contention that the application was filed belatedly because of his health reasons, the respondent is not justified in passing the order impugned in this writ petition, mechanically stating that the same is filed belatedly. I find every justification to accept the reasons for condonation.Accordingly,the delay is condoned, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the respondent for considering the application filed by the petitioner seeking for renewal of the auto permit and dispose of the same in accordance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Such exercise shall be done by the respondent within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall produce the required certificates if any as directed by the respondent at the time of considering the application. No costs.

vri To The Regional Transport Authority, Chennai North Range, Ayanavaram, Chennai 600 023.

+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.17966 W.P.No.6734 of 2017 CA(CO) CA(06/04/2017)