S.ANILKUMAR, SIVAGANGA v. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 26 Sep 2006
- Bench
- P R RAMAN, P A P R RAMAN
Outcome
Disposed of
Writ petition is disposed of as above
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Heard both sides. In the facts and circumstances, there will be a direction to RTA, Ernakulam to consider and dispose of Exhibit P1 expeditiously, at any rate, preferably within a period of three months. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Rp P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE
Judgment
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DECEMBER 2006 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA 1928 WP(C).No. 28338 of 2006(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- S.ANILKUMAR, SIVAGANGA, THOTTAKKATTUKARA P.O., ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.D.RENU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/12/2006, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 28338/2006 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS APPENDIX EXHIBIT P1: DATED 26.09.2006 THE TRUE COPYOF THE REGULAR PERMIT APPLICATION EXHIBIT P2: THE TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN DATED 26.09.2006 //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE P.R.RAMAN, J. ``````````````````````````` W.P.(C) NO. 28338 OF 2006 ``````````````````````````` Dated this the 13th day of December, 2006 J U D G M E N T The limited prayer made in this writ petition is for a direction to consider Exhibit P1 and to dispose of the same.
Operative part
Heard both sides. In the facts and circumstances, there will be a direction to RTA, Ernakulam to consider and dispose of Exhibit P1 expeditiously, at any rate, preferably within a period of three months. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Rp P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Writ petition is disposed of as above
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 26 Sep 2006. The bench was P R RAMAN, P A P R RAMAN.
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.