Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

VIJAY KUMAR versus THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


VIJAY KUMAR v THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE - CW Case No. 9031 of 2002 [2007] RD-RJ 5011 (9 October 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

ORDER

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9031/2002

VIJAY KUMAR

Vs.

THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR & ANR.

DATE: 09.10.2007.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RATHORE

Mr. S.K. Ajmera and

Mr. M.B. Sharma for the petitioner.

****

The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 26.11.2002 passed by the State Transport

Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur, whereby the renewal application of the petitioner has been rejected.

It is not disputed that the application for renewal was given on 06.11.2000 for 5 years and that period also expired during pendency of this writ petition and now the petitioner has submitted fresh renewal application on 22.10.2005, which has not been decided so far and only the impugned order regarding rejection of the renewal application dated 06.11.2000 is under challenge.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application for renewal be considered in view of the provisions of Section 217-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as also in view of the ratio decided by this Court in the case of M/s Ravi Bus

Service & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in R.L.W. 2002(2) Raj. 1279.

I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

So far as the impugned order with regard to rejection of the renewal application filed on 06.11.2000 is concerned, this writ petition has become infructuous as another renewal application which was filed on 22.10.2005 is still pending.

The respondents are expected to consider the renewal application in accordance with the provisions of law, but in any case, in this writ petition no writ, order or direction is required to be issued as the writ petition has become infructuous so far as earlier renewal application moved on 06.11.2000 is concerned.

Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed as having become infructuous.

The ex parte interim order dated 05.12.2002 granted by this Court stands rejected. The stay application also stands dismissed.

(K.S. RATHORE),J. /KKC/


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.