The Transport Commissioner v. M.Nagarajan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Wednesday, the Nineteenth day of February Two Thousand and Twenty Five PRESENT The HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA in Rev.Aplw.(MD) SR.NO.76718 of 2024
1. The Transport Commissioner O/o. the Transport Commissioner, Guindy Chennai
2. The Joint Transport Commissioner, O/o. the Joint Transport Commissioner, Madurai Region, Madurai, Madurai District.
3. The Deputy Transport Commissioner O/o. the Deputy Transport Commissioner, Tirunelveli, .. Petitioners/Petitioners Vs 1 M.Nagarajan .. Respondent/Respondent Prayer WMP(MD). No.21459 of 2024 :- Writ Miscellaneous Petition filed under section 5 of Limitation Act, praying to condone the delay of 47 days in filing the above Review Petition against the order dated 01.08.2024 made in WP.(MD).No. 18211 of 2024. 1/4
Prayer in Rev.Aplw.(MD) SR.NO.76718 of 2024:
Review Application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 & 2 r/w Section 114 of C.P.C., praying to Review the Order dated 01.08.2024 made in WP.(MD).No. 18211 of 2024. Prayer in WP.(MD).No. 18211 of 2024:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to pass final orders on the charge memo in R.No.836/A3/2017 dated 29.01.2018 within time frame fixed by this court.
ORDER:- This Miscellaneous Petition coming on for orders on this day and upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon perusing the earlier orders of this court, this Court made the following order: There is no representation for the Review Petitioner. 2.
On perusal of the Review Application, it is seen that the third respondent is not the competent authority to pass any final orders on the charge memo dated 29.10.2019 and the final orders have to be passed by the Additional Secretary to the Government, Transport Department.
3.
The order of this Court only stated that whatever order that can be passed by the authority should be on merits. If the third respondent does not have any authority to pass the order, he can mention it in any order that he might pass in compliance of the direction. This can enable the petitioner to challenge the order or if he is still aggrieved to take any proceedings as advised. 2/4
4.
In view of the limited relief granted and also in view of the observations made in this miscellaneous petition to condone the delay of 47 days in filing the Review Application, this miscellaneous petition is dismissed. In the said circumstances, the Review Application is also rejected at the SR stage itself. Sd/- ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (CS-II) // True Copy // /03/2025 Sub Assistant Registrar ( CS-I / II / III / IV ) TO
1. The Transport Commissioner O/o. the Transport Commissioner, Guindy Chennai
2. The Joint Transport Commissioner, O/o. the Joint Transport Commissioner, Madurai Region, Madurai, Madurai District.
3. The Deputy Transport Commissioner O/o. the Deputy Transport Commissioner, Tirunelveli, 3/4
ORDER DATED : 19/02/2025 ==========================
ORDER
========================== in Rev.Aplw(MD)Sr.No.76718 of 2024 AS -(17.03.2025) 4P/ 4C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023. 4/4