1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 22.11.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN W.P.(MD)No.12820 of 2011 And M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2011 T.Narayanadhas : Petitioner vs. 1.The Regional Transport Authority, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. 2.The Regional Transport Officer, Marthandam, Kanyakumari District. :Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to ply his Minibus bearing Registration No.TN-72-D-3331 from Thuckalai to Pookkadai (via) Mettukadai, Thiruvithancode Palli Junction, Palli Street Turning, Thiruvithancode Thiruppu, Muggamattur, Kozhiporvilai Thiruppu, Kozhiporvilai Junction and Pookkadai. For Petitioner : Mr.H.Velavadhas For Respondents : Mr.K.P.Krishnadoss, Government Advocate. O R D E R The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition, seeking a direction to the respondents to permit him to ply his Minibus bearing Registration No.TN-72-D-3331 from Thuckkalai to Pookkadai via Mettukkadai, Thiruvithancode Palli Junction, Palli Street Turning, Thiruvithancode Thiruppu, Muggamattur, Kozhiporvilai Thiruppu, Kozhiporvilai Junction and Pookkadai. 2. Heard Mr.H.Velavadhas, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.P.Krishnadoss, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 3. On the ground that the road from Kozhiporvilai Junction to Maruthancode had been damaged on account of the rain, the petitioner claims to have made a representation dated 9.6.2001 for allowing him to ply the Minibus through an alternative route. Since there was no response, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. On 11.11.2011, I directed the learned Government Advocate to take notice and get instructions. Today, the learned Government Advocate produced a communication from the Regional Transport Officer, Marthandam. It is stated therein that the petitioner has not made any application, seeking permission for an alternative route. It is also stated that if an application is made by the petitioner, an inspection of the route will be https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 made by the Motor Vehicles Inspector and a decision will be taken, within two weeks. 5. However, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the representation made by him on 9.6.2011 was served on the second respondent. He has also produced the acknowledgement card. But I do not wish to get into the controversy as to whether an application was made or received. 6. In the light of the stand now taken by the second respondent, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the petitioner to send one more application in the prescribed format, if there is any format, along with a copy of this order, to the second respondent. Upon receipt of the application, the second respondent shall have an inspection of the road for which the petitioner already has permit and also the alternative route for which he seeks permission and take a decision in accordance with law and communicate the same to the petitioner, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (RTI) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Regional Transport Authority, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. 2.The Regional Transport Officer, Marthandam, Kanyakumari District. + 1 cc to The Special Government Pleader, SR No.47095 W.P.(MD)No.12820 of 2011 22.11.2011 Svn RJ/28.11.11 2p/4c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/