K.Kaliraj, S/O.Kaliappan, v. The State Of Tamil Nadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 23.12.2016

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.KALAIYARASAN W.P(MD)No.24931 of 2016 K.Kaliraj .. Petitioner Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary, Department of Transport Corporation, The Secretariat, Chennai.

2.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, KTC Nagar, Palayamkottai Main Road Tirunelveli Zone, Tirunelveli - 627 011.

3.The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Tuticorin) Ltd., Tuticorin Zone, Tuticorin District.

4.The Branch Manager (Administration), Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Tuticorin Region, Tuticorin, Tuticorin District ... Respondents PRAYER:

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd and 3rd respondents to include Panaiyur and Puliyamarathu Arasadi in the Bus Route No.53M which is being operated in the route Tuticorin to Kulathur in Tuticorin Region at Ottapidaram Taluk.

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Kanagaraj For Respondent No.1 : Mr.R.Velmurugan, Government Advocate.

For Respondents 2 to 4 : Mr.K.Sathiyasingh

ORDER

[Order of the Court was made by A.SELVAM, J.] This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondents 2 and 3 to include Panaiyur and Puliyamarathu Arasadi in Bus Route No.53M which is being operated in the route Tuticorin to Kulathur in Tuticorin Region, by way of issuing a writ of mandamus. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2.It is averred in the petition that the petitioner is a resident of Melamaruthur Village, Ottapidaram Taluk. Further it is averred in the petition that despite of representations given to the respondents 2 and 3, they have failed to include the bus route mentioned in the petition. Under the said circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed for getting the relief sought therein.

3.Mr.R.Velmurugan, learned Government Advocate, has taken notice for the first respondent and Mr.K.Sathiyasingh, learned counsel, has taken notice for the respondents 2 to 4. 4.It is seen from the records that on 17.11.2016 a representation has been given to the respondents 2 and 3 with regard to inclusion of bus routes mentioned in the petition. But no action has been taken by them. Under the said circumstances the following direction can be issued against the respondents 2 and 3.

5.In fine, this writ petition is allowed without costs and the respondents 2 and 3 are strictly directed to look into the representation dated 17.11.2016 alleged to have been given by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within a period of one month after giving proper opportunity to the petitioner. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(C.O) /True copy/ Sub assistant Registrar To 1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary, Department of Transport Corporation, The Secretariat, Chennai.

2.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, KTC Nagar, Palayamkottai Main Road Tirunelveli Zone, Tirunelveli - 627 011.

3.The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Tuticorin) Ltd., Tuticorin Zone, Tuticorin District.

4.The Branch Manager (Administration), Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Tuticorin Region, Tuticorin, Tuticorin District. +1cc to Mr.B.Baskar, Advocate (SR83107) +1cc to Mr.K.Sathiya Singh, Advocate (SR83125) +1cc to the Special Government Pleader (SR83584) ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)No.24931 of 2016 smn 23.12.2016 ANR/EM-MPA/SAR3/5.1.2017/3P/8C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/