IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 30.6.2011 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.10221 of 2011 G. MANI [ PETITIONER ] Vs 1 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT. 2 THE SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY-CUM-THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, HOSUR KRISHNAGIRI. 3 THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CITY CIVIL COURT BUILDINGS CHENNAI – 104. [ RESPONDENTS ] Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the Impugned order of the 2nd respondent vide R.No.55355/A2/2009, dated 22/3/2011 and to quash the same aned further to direct the 2nd respondent to grant the replacement of existing vehicle No.TN-46-B-7799 with the replacing vehicle No.TN-34-H-1515 or any other vehicle in that place. For petitioner : Mr.S.Govindraman For respondents : Mr.N.Sakthivel Government Advocate O R D E R This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the second respondent, dated 22.3.2011, rejecting the application of the petitioner for replacement of the vehicle in the place of the existing vehicle bearing registration No.TN-46-B-7799. 2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ submitted that an appeal is pending before the third respondent appellate Tribunal, in Appeal No.49 of 2010. He had also submitted that the petitioner may be directed to move an application before the third respondent appellate Tribunal for the replacement of the vehicle in question, as per law. 3. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that a direction may be issued to the third respondent appellate Tribunal to dispose of the appeal, in Appeal No.49 of 2010, on merits and in accordance with law, within a specified period. 4. In view of the submisions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned, the third respondent appellate Tribunal is directed to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner, in Appeal No.49 of 2010, as expeditiously as possible, not later than twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Further, it goes without saying that it would be open to the petitioner to move an appropriate application before the third respondent appellate tribunal for the replacement of the vehicle in question, in the manner known to law. The Registry is directed to return the original impugned order to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Connected M.P.No.1 of 2011 is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar lan To 1 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT. 2 THE SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY-CUM-THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, HOSUR KRISHNAGIRI. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CITY CIVIL COURT BUILDINGS CHENNAI – 104. +1cc to Mr.S.Govindaraman, Advocate Sr 37933 +1cc to Govt. Pleader Sr 38707 SGL(CO) km/4.7. Writ Petition No.10221 of 2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/