Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V.Lakshminarayanan, J
A.Rukmini – Appellant
Versus
Regional Transport Authority, Erode Region, Erode – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of writ petitions to challenge orders of the tribunal. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. preliminary objections raised against writ petitions. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. submissions regarding tribunal's amenability to writ jurisdiction. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. historical context on judicial decisions and writ maintainability. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. distinction between courts and tribunals, focusing on powers. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 6. jurisdictional scope for high courts under articles 226 and 227. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 7. supervisory powers of the high court regarding tribunals. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 8. history and establishment of the state transport appellate tribunal. (Para 24 , 26 , 28) |
| 9. status and jurisdiction of the state transport appellate tribunal. (Para 46 , 48 , 49) |
| 10. final ruling on maintainability of writ petitions. (Para 53 , 54 , 55) |
COMMON ORDER
These writ petitions challenge the orders passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as STAT) at Chennai.
2.The writ petitions were admitted and rule nisi had been issued. The matters were listed before me for final disposal.
3.When I took the writ petitions for hearing on 04.09.2025, Mr.T.Mo
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
