T.Ramanujula Reddy v. The Regional Transport Authority
Case at a glance
- Bench
- K C BHANU
Outcome
Allowed
The Writ Petition is allowed granting three months time from today to the petitioner
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. The Writ Petition is allowed granting three months time from today to the petitioner to produce the said valid records of the vehicle, failing which he is not entitled to any valid permit. 4th March, 2005. Tsy ______________ (K.C.BHANU,J) To 1 The Secretary, Regional…
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 may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not passing any orders on the petitioner's representation dt.15-3-2004 extending the time stipulated in its R.No.4743/A2/99 dated 20-10-2003 by 4 more months, as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the respondent No.1 herein to extend the time granted to the petitioner on 20-10-2004 by 4 more months. Counsel for the Petitioner:
Smt. M.VINOBHA DEVI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR TRANSPORT The Court at the admission stage made the following :
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the 1st respondent in not passing any orders on the petitioner's representation, dated 15-3-2004, extending the time stipulated in proceedings R.No.4743/A2/99, dated 20-10-2003, by four more months, as illegal, arbitrary and unjust, and consequently to direct the 1st respondent herein to extend the time granted to the petitioner on 20-10-2004 by four more months.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Transport appearing on behalf of the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner made an application to the 1st respondent for grant of Stage Carriage Permit and the 1st respondent rejected the same, vide proceedings No.R.No.4744/A2/99, dated 20-03-
2002. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent-State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, in A.P.No.86 of 2002, and the same was allowed on 25-07-2003, by setting aside the impugned order dated 20-03-2002 and the 1st respondent-Regional Transport Authority was directed to issue permit, on the route in question, within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, on production of valid documents as required under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and A.P.Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. In pursuance of the said order, the 1st respondent directed the petitioner to produce valid records of the vehicle within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the proceedings. The petitioner made an application on 15-03-2004 to the 1st respondent for extension of time by four months, but the 1st respondent has not passed any orders. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition.
Operative part
The Writ Petition is allowed granting three months time from today to the petitioner to produce the said valid records of the vehicle, failing which he is not entitled to any valid permit. 4th March, 2005. Tsy ______________ (K.C.BHANU,J) To 1 The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Kadapa, Kadapa District. 2 The Presiding Officer, The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad. 3 Two CCs to the GP for Transport, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad (O.U.T.). 4 Two CD copies
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The Writ Petition is allowed granting three months time from today to the petitioner
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
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.