V.Sekar v. The Regional Transport Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 03-04-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD 1.V.Sekar, S/o.Velu, No.2/64, Vaniar Mettu Street, Gangai Amman Kovil Street, Ayyappanthangal Bus Depot, Kanchipuram, Chennai - 600 056.

Petitioner(s) Vs The Regional Transport Officer, Poonamallee, Chennai.

Respondent(s) PRAYER Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent herein to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's application dated 20.03.2025 for grant of maxi cab van permit in respect of vehicle bearing Registration No.TN18Z2293 forthwith and pass such further orders.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.M.Elango For Respondent(s):

M/s.R.L.Karthika, Government Advocate 1/4

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent herein to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's application dated 20.03.2025 for grant of maxi cab van permit in respect of vehicle bearing Registration No.TN18Z2293 forthwith.

2. The petitioner is a professional driver and purchased a Maxi Cab van bearing Registration No.TN18Z2293 through a second sale from one Mr.K.Elumala in December 2019. The vehicle was registered with the Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Ambattur. Although the vehicle was being operated under valid permits issued by the respondent, the name transfer in the registration certificate was not completed. The respondent's office had informed the petitioner that the name transfer could not be done after the permit was granted. The vehicle's permit expired a few months ago, and on 20.03.2025, the petitioner submitted an application for a fresh permit under the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, along with the required documents and fees. The application was acknowledged, and an e-fee receipt was issued. 2/4

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that despite fulfilling all legal requirements and submitting the application with the necessary enclosures, the respondent has failed to process and grant the permit. He alleges that such inaction is arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Hence, this case.

4. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent submits that the representation of the petitioner dated 20.03.2025 would be considered on merits, in accordance with law, within a time frame stipulated by this Court.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. Without going into the merits of the case, the respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 20.03.2025 for grant of maxi cab van permit in respect of vehicle bearing Registration No.TN18Z2293 on merits, in accordance with law, and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

3/4

J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD J.

In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of with the above observations and direction. No costs.

03-04-2025 cda Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order To The Regional Transport Officer, Poonamallee, Chennai.

4/4