Md.Bahadur v. The Govt. of A.P
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
counsel for petitioner, the Writ Petition is dismissed as having
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 s. 86
Judgment
Cause title
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction, preferably one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the Resolution of the 2nd Respondent dt. 22.8.1997 in Item. No.15 (circulation) revising the existing compounding fee fixed under Rule 217 of A.P.Motor Vehicle Rules 1989, issued by the 1st Respondent under Section 95 and 96 of M.V.Act 1988 in lieu of cancellation of suspension of permits under Section 86 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 in respect of different types of irregularities as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of M.V. Act, 1988 and Rules made there under and to pass such other order or orders as deemed fit and proper. For the Petitioner:
Mr. Noushad Ali, Advocate For the Respondents: G. P. for Transport The Court Made the Following Order:
ORDER:
Operative part
W.P.NO.24886 OF 1999 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the relief claimed in the Writ Petition has become infructuous. Recording the above submission made by the learned counsel for petitioner, the Writ Petition is dismissed as having been infructuous. No costs. __________________ (A. GOPAL REDDY, J) June 28, 2004 MRR Copy to:
The Secretary, Transport, Roads and Buildings Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.
Regional Transport Authority, Krishna District.
Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Krishna District.
Two C.Cs to the G.P for Transport, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT)
Two C.D. Copies.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: counsel for petitioner, the Writ Petition is dismissed as having
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s. 86.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 28 Jun 2004. The bench was A GOPAL REDDY.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.