Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

C.H.NARAYANAN, SREEJA MOTORS versus THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


C.H.NARAYANAN, SREEJA MOTORS v. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY - WP(C) No. 19523 of 2006(Y) [2007] RD-KL 16882 (7 September 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 19523 of 2006(Y)

1. C.H.NARAYANAN, SREEJA MOTORS,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
... Respondent

2. THE SECRETARY,

For Petitioner :SRI.K.G.ANIL BABU

For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

Dated :07/09/2007

O R D E R

ANTONY DOMINIC,J


================
W.P.(C).No.19523 of 2006
===========================

Dated this the 7th day of September, 2007



JUDGMENT

An inter district regular permit was granted to the petitioner as per Exts.P1 and P2. However, the R.T.A. refused concurrence and eventually by Ext.P7order of the S.T.A.T concurrence was granted. In the meantime, by Ext.P5 the permit granted to the petitioner was revoked without issuing a notice to him and that was challenged before this Court by filing W.P.(C).22503/2003 which was dismissed. Against that, Writ Appeal.1883/2003 was filed which was disposed of by Ext.P6 judgment. By this judgment the Division Bench set aside Ext.P5 as it was passed without notice and directed the Regional Transport Authority take fresh decision in the matter.

2. Following Ext.P6, petitioner submitted Ext.P8 representation to the R.T.A to issue permit and requested to comply with Ext.P6 judgment of this Court. In pursuance of that R.T.A passed Ext.P9 order rejecting the petitioner's request on the ground that the route is well served and saturated and there is no scope for further permits. Against the said decision W.P.(C).No.19523/2006 2 of the R.T.A, Ext.P9, this writ petition has been filed. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Having heard the counsel on either sides, I am satisfied that the matter requires to be reconsidered. Though the R.T.A was directed to reconsider the correctness of the revocation of the permit, that has not been done while passing Ext.P9 order. Since the matter has not been reconsidered as directed by this Court and I quash Ext.P9 and direct the first respondent to consider the matter afresh as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall produce a certified copy of this judgment before the first respondent for compliance.

ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE

dvs


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.