High Court Kerala High Court

P.P.Ibrahim vs The R.T.A on 23 January, 2007

Kerala High Court
P.P.Ibrahim vs The R.T.A on 23 January, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA No. 95 of 2007()


1. P.P.IBRAHIM, S/O.ALUPPI HAJI,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE R.T.A.
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE SECRETARY,

3. THE S.T.A.T. ERNAKULAM.

                For Petitioner  :SRI.A.K.ABDUL AZEEZ

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.V.K.BALI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.RAMACHANDRAN

 Dated :23/01/2007

 O R D E R
           V.K.BALI,C.J. & M. RAMACHANDRAN, J.

             ----------------------------------------------

                      W.A. No. 95 of  2007

                ----------------------------------------------

          Dated this the 23rd day of  January, 2007.


                          J U D G M E N T

Ramachandran, J.

The appellant is the owner of a stage carriage

and according to him, had applied for a regular permit for

operation in the district of Kannur. However, according to

him, the permit was granted not in compliance with the

request and a condition had been imposed which would

have been inconvenient for him. He claims, he knew about

it when the timings were prepared. A writ petition (W.P.(C)

No.30624 of 2005) filed was dismissed with right to move

the State Transport Appellate Tribunal by way of revision.

The above revision was dismissed and the timings issued

were to remain. The Tribunal had also indicated that the

grant with the condition was not challenged and the

revision petition was not maintainable. The next writ

petition (W.P(C) No.29339 of 2006) filed was dismissed by

the learned Judge holding that the view as above taken is

unexceptionable since he had not chosen to challenge the

WA NO. 95 of 2007

:-2-:

order of the S.T.A.T. It was not possible for him to rake

up the contentions on principles akin to constructive res

judicata. Mr.Azeez, counsel appearing for the appellant

submits that the learned Judge has a duty to consider the

intention of the Act in the matter of issuing permits

liberally and the remedy ought to have been granted.

But, that is not a justification for contending that the

order need to have been challenged in part. The error

goes to the root of the issue.

The appeal is therefore dismissed.

V.K.Bali

Chief Justice

M. Ramachandran

Judge

Mbs/

WA NO. 95 of 2007

:-3-: