Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

P.P.IBRAHIM, S/O.ALUPPI HAJI versus THE R.T.A

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


P.P.IBRAHIM, S/O.ALUPPI HAJI v. THE R.T.A - WA No. 95 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 1826 (23 January 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA No. 95 of 2007()

1. P.P.IBRAHIM, S/O.ALUPPI HAJI,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE R.T.A.
... Respondent

2. THE SECRETARY,

3. THE S.T.A.T. ERNAKULAM.

For Petitioner :SRI.A.K.ABDUL AZEEZ

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.V.K.BALI The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.RAMACHANDRAN

Dated :23/01/2007

O R D E R

V.K.BALI,C.J. & M. RAMACHANDRAN, J.

W.A. No. 95 of 2007

Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2007.



J U D G M E N T

Ramachandran, J.

The appellant is the owner of a stage carriage and according to him, had applied for a regular permit for operation in the district of Kannur. However, according to him, the permit was granted not in compliance with the request and a condition had been imposed which would have been inconvenient for him. He claims, he knew about it when the timings were prepared. A writ petition (W.P.(C) No.30624 of 2005) filed was dismissed with right to move the State Transport Appellate Tribunal by way of revision. The above revision was dismissed and the timings issued were to remain. The Tribunal had also indicated that the grant with the condition was not challenged and the revision petition was not maintainable. The next writ petition (W.P(C) No.29339 of 2006) filed was dismissed by the learned Judge holding that the view as above taken is unexceptionable since he had not chosen to challenge the WA NO. 95 of 2007 order of the S.T.A.T. It was not possible for him to rake up the contentions on principles akin to constructive res judicata. Mr.Azeez, counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned Judge has a duty to consider the intention of the Act in the matter of issuing permits liberally and the remedy ought to have been granted. But, that is not a justification for contending that the order need to have been challenged in part. The error goes to the root of the issue. The appeal is therefore dismissed. V.K.Bali Chief Justice M. Ramachandran Judge Mbs/ WA NO. 95 of 2007


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.