D. Balaji Vs The Regional Transport Authority and The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

Madras High Court 29 Mar 2011 Writ Petition No. 6746 of 2011 (2011) 03 MAD CK 0544
Bench: Single Bench
Result Published

Judgement Snapshot

Case Number

Writ Petition No. 6746 of 2011

Hon'ble Bench

M. Jaichandren, J

Advocates

K. Hariharan, for the Appellant; R. Thirugnanam, Special Government Pleader, for the Respondent

Final Decision

Dismissed

Judgement Text

Translate:

@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER

M. Jaichandren, J.@mdashHeard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the Respondents.

2. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner had submitted that it would suffice if the first Respondent is directed to consider and pass orders on the application of the Petitioner, dated 28.10.2008, as per the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court, by its order, dated 23.6.2010, made in W.A. Nos. 1104, 777, 1013, 1110 and 1111 of 2009, within a specified period.

3. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the Respondents had submitted that the first Respondent could not pass orders, as per the directions issued by this Court, by its order, dated 23.6.2010, made in W.A. Nos. 1104, 777, 1013, 1110 and 1111 of 2009, due to the pendency of a writ petition, in W.P. No. 7412 of 2010, wherein, an order of status quo had been granted, in respect of G.O. Ms. No. 277, Home (Transport-VI) Department, dated 22.3.2001. Subsequently, the writ petition had been dismissed, by an order passed by this Court, on 22.1.2011. However, the Chief Electoral Officer, Public (Election) Department, Chennai, had informed that the granting of auto permits would be against the model code of conduct and therefore, no permits should be issued, after the coming into force of the model code of conduct, from 1.3.2011.

4. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner had submitted that it would suffice if appropriate orders are passed on the application of the Petitioner, dated 28.10.2008, after the results of the general elections are announced.

5. In view of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and in view of the submissions made by the learned Counsels appearing for the parties concerned, the first Respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders on the application of the Petitioner, dated 28.10.2008, for the grant of share auto permits, in respect of Tirupur District, on or before 31.5.2011, after the elections results are announced, if there are no further legal impediments for passing such an order.

The writ petition stands ordered accordingly. No costs.

From The Blog
Madras High Court to Hear School’s Plea Against State Objection to RSS Camp on Campus
Feb
07
2026

Court News

Madras High Court to Hear School’s Plea Against State Objection to RSS Camp on Campus
Read More
Delhi High Court Quashes Ban on Medical Students’ Inter-College Migration, Calls Rule Arbitrary
Feb
07
2026

Court News

Delhi High Court Quashes Ban on Medical Students’ Inter-College Migration, Calls Rule Arbitrary
Read More