Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 968 (MAD)

J. Vasuki v. Regional Transport Authority

2012-02-23

M.JAICHANDREN

body2012
Judgment :- 1. The writ petitions have been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a Writs of Mandamus to direct the respondent to comply with the directions of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, dated 7.5.2010, made in M.V.Appeal Nos.161 and 162 of 2009, and the order of this Court, dated 27.10.2010, made in W.P.No.12919 of 2010 etc., batch. 2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners had submitted that the State Transport Appellate Tribunal had passed an order, on 7.5.2010, in M.V.Appeal Nos.161 and 162 of 2009, setting aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority, Erode, the respondent herein, cancelling the permits of the petitioners and had remanded the matter back to the respondent to pass necessary orders, as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the rules framed thereunder, after issuing the necessary show cause notices and by conducting an enquiry. 3. This Court by its order, dated 27.10.2010, made in W.P.No.12919 of 2010 etc., (batch), had confirmed the order passed by the Tribunal, on 7.5.2010. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners had submitted that the petitioners has a serious apprehension that the respondent may not follow the directions issued by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, by its order, dated 7.5.2010, and the directions issued by this Court, in its order, dated 27.10.2010, made in W.P.No.12919 of 2010, while passing an order relating to the matter in question. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had submitted that the apprehension of the petitioners that the respondent would not comply with the directions issued by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, in its order, dated 7.5.2010, and the directions issued by this Court, by its order, dated 27.10.2010, is ill-founded. In fact the respondent is following the directions issued by the Tribunal, in its order, dated 7.5.2010, and the directions issued by this Court, in its order, dated 27.10.2010, in conducting the enquiry relating to the matter in question. He had further submitted that appropriate orders would be passed by the respondent, on merits and in accordance with law, on the completion of the enquiry. 5. In view of the said submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, since, no further orders are necessary, the writ petitions stand closed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.