Mohankumar. E v. The District Collector / Regional Transport Authority

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :07.11.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ E.Mohankumar ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The District Collector/Regional Transport Authority, Office of the District Collector, Collector Office Campus, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

2.The Regional Transport Officer, Office of the Regional Transport Officer, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

3.M/s.Bhavani Transport, Rep by its Proprietor, No.1555, K.K.Nagar, Vasavi College (P.O), Erode 638316 ... Respondents PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider and dispose the petitioner's representation dated 12.09.2022 as expeditiously as possible and take action against the violation committed by the third respondent within the time stipulated by this Court.

For Petitioner :Mr.N.S.Karthikeyan For Respondents :Mr.M.Prakash Additional Government Pleader

O R D E R

The present writ petition is filed to direct the first and second respondents to consider the representation dated 12.09.2022 and take action against the alleged violation committed by the third respondent. 2.It is submitted that the third respondent is operating Madurai to Dindigul bus at 02.39 p.m., instead of his permit time which is 02.36 p.m., from Madurai. Petitioner's route permit from Madurai to Dindigul is at 02.40 p.m., and arrival at Dindigul is to be at 04.10 p.m. The third respondent is operating at 02.39 p.m, i.e, almost petitioner's time of 02.40p.m., i.e, three minutes after the permit time. The third respondent's failure to comply with permit time is causing a lot of hardship to the petitioner. It is clearly a violation of route permit time. Despite representations to the first and second respondents, no action is taken against the third respondent. Distance for third respondent's route is 73.2kms., whereas petitioner's route covers only 65.1kms., Difference in

running time given between petitioner's route and others is 14 minutes. First and second respondents are allegedly permitting violation of timing by the third respondent. Thus, by plying the bus at 02.39p.m., third respondent is causing loss in the ticket collections of the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition.

3.Mr.M.Prakash, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the first and second respondents submitted that the representation dated 12.09.2022 to the respondents would be considered on merits and in accordance with law, within a time frame that may be fixed by this Court.

4.Considering the limited scope of the prayer sought for in this writ petition, there shall be a direction to the first and second respondents herein to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 12.09.2022, and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, after affording a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and other stake holders/interested parties, if any, and in the event

of any violation, appropriate action will be taken against the third respondent. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any views with regard to the merits of the representation and it is open to the Respondents to consider the representation on its own merits. 5.With the above direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

07.11.2022 Index : Yes / No Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order sbn To 1.The District Collector/Regional Transport Authority, Office of the District Collector, Collector Office Campus, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

2.The Regional Transport Officer, Office of the Regional Transport Officer, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.

sbn 07.11.2022