1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated :: 22..03..2011 Coram:: THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE K. SUGUNA and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.ARUMUGHASWAMY Writ Appeal (MD)No.377 of 2011 S. Murugan, S/o. Subbaiah Asari, D.No.123, Ansari Nagar 1st Street, Madurai. ..... Appellant - Vs - 1. The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai. 2. The Regional Transport Authority, Madurai South, Madurai. ......Respondents Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 07.02.2011 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD)No.711 of 2010. WP[MD]NO.711 OF 2010: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the second respondent in Ka.Na.60398/c2/2008, dated 01.09.2008, quash the same, and direct the second respondent to renew the petitioner's permit for his auto-rickshaw bearing Registration No.TNW-2604. For Appellant :: Mr. B. Ravi J U D G M E N T (Judgment of the Court was delivered by K. SUGUNA, J.) This Writ Appeal is filed challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD)No.711 of 2010 dated 07.02.2011. 2. The said writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.711 of 2010 was filed challenging the order of the second respondent/The Regional Transport Authority, Madurai dated 01.09.2008, rejecting the petitioner's request for renewal of the permit on the ground of lapse of time. 3. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant/writ petitioner has purchased an auto rickshaw bearing Registration No.TNW 2604 from one Arumugam and the permit was also transferred in the name of the appellant herein. It is also the stand of the learned counsel for the appellant that the permit has been expired as early as in 1995 and subsequently the same has not been renewed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4. During 2008, the appellant herein has taken steps to renew the permit, however, that has been rejected by the order of the second respondent on the ground that the same has been filed after the period of limitation prescribed under the Act. The learned Single Judge also on the ground that the application for renewal has been made after the period of limitation prescribed under the Act, has dismissed the said writ petition. The learned counsel for the appellant also admits the said position. 5. Now, the grievance of the appellant herein is that after refusing to renew the permit of the appellant, the second respondent transferred the permit in respect of an auto rickshaw bearing Registration No.TN 58 H 2604. According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, having refused to renew the appellant's permit, the second respondent ought not to have transferred the permit to the auto rickshaw bearing Registration No.TN 58 H 2604. 6. As far as the above said stand of the learned counsel for the appellant is concerned, there is no prayer in the writ petition. The challenge in the writ petition is only with regard to the order dated 01.09.2008 passed by the second respondent, refusing to renew the permit. Under such circumstances, this Court cannot dealt with the issue of transfer of permit. Hence, we are not inclined to entertain this writ appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, this writ appeal is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. It is made clear that if the appellant is having any grievance with regard to the transfer of permit, he is at liberty to take appropriate steps before the appropriate Forum. Dpn/- Sd/- Assistant Registrar[P&A] /True copy/ To Sub Assistant Registrar 1. The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai. 2. The Regional Transport Authority, Madurai South, Madurai. +1 cc to Mr.R.Subramanian, Advocate SR.No.7484. Writ Appeal (MD)No.377 of 2011 Dated:22.03.2011 2P/4C RPB 19.04.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/