Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

K.S.R.T.C. REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR versus THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


K.S.R.T.C. REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR v. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY - WP(C) No. 18486 of 2005(A) [2007] RD-KL 6563 (29 March 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 18486 of 2005(A)

1. K.S.R.T.C. REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
... Respondent

2. MR.U.D.SHANI,

For Petitioner :SRI.T.RAVIKUMAR, SC, KSRTC

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

Dated :29/03/2007

O R D E R

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.

WP(C) No. 18486 of 2005

Dated, this the 29th day of March, 2007



J U D G M E N T

Heard the counsel for the KSRTC and Adv. Shri.O.D.Sivadas appearing for the 2nd respondent, whose name was not shown in the list and the learned Govt. Pleader appearing for 1st respondent.

2. KSRTC is challenging Ext.P6 order on the ground of scheme violation. However on going through Ext.P6 I find the issue decided by the STAT is only with regard to 2nd respondent's entitlement for replacement of vehicle, before commencement of operation, in respect of the vehicle for which permit was granted. Counsel for the 2nd respondent rightly pointed out that when vehicle is produced pursuant to grant of permit, Rule 159(2) is satisfied and it is open to the operator to substitute the vehicle and commence the operation with another one after the grant but before the issue of permit. Since the issue raised by KSRTC has not considered by the STAT, it does not arise from that order and therefore, challenge against Ext.P6 order is not maintainable. So far as KSRTC's contention is concerned, the RTA has not W.P.(C)No. 18486/2005 -Page numbers- considered their objection while granting permit. I feel the question therefore should be raised through a revision before the STAT. This WP(C) is accordingly dismissed.

(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.)

jg


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.