{"id":147432,"date":"2010-06-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-06-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-muraleedharan-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-25-june-2010"},"modified":"2015-07-21T19:12:13","modified_gmt":"2015-07-21T13:42:13","slug":"k-p-muraleedharan-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-25-june-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-muraleedharan-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-25-june-2010","title":{"rendered":"K.P.Muraleedharan vs The Regional Transport Authority on 25 June, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
K.P.Muraleedharan vs The Regional Transport Authority on 25 June, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 12222 of 2010(C)\n\n\n1. K.P.MURALEEDHARAN,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE SECRETARY,\n\n3. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,\n\n4. K.SAJEEVAN,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.DEEPAK\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.O.D.SIVADAS\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN\n\n Dated :25\/06\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                    K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J.\n                    --------------------------------\n                   W.P.(C).No.12222 of 2010\n                ----------------------------------------\n         Dated this the 25th day of June, 2010\n\n                         JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
     The petitioner is a stage carriage operator conducting<\/p>\n
services on the route Kannur-Mattannur via Chakkarakalle,<\/p>\n
Ancharakandy and Keezhallor. The 4th respondent is also<\/p>\n
conducting service on the route Kannur-Mattannur to Kolary<\/p>\n
L.P.School. The 4th respondent had approached the 2nd<\/p>\n
respondent for the revision of his own timings. However, his<\/p>\n
request was rejected. Thereupon the 4th respondent<\/p>\n
challenged the rejection of his request by filing a revision<\/p>\n
petition before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal<\/p>\n
(‘STAT’ for short). However, the revision was filed by the<\/p>\n
4th respondent without making the petitioner as well as the<\/p>\n
other   objectors   parties    to    the    same.     In  W.P.(C).<\/p>\n
No.30604\/2007 the order of the STAT was set aside for the<\/p>\n
reason that the 4th respondent had not made all the<\/p>\n
persons who had objected to the timings             parties to the<\/p>\n
revision petition. The said revision petition was filed by the<\/p>\n
petitioner herein and another person. Thereafter, though<\/p>\n
W. P.(C).No.12222 of 2010      2<\/span><\/p>\n
the 4th respondent had filed a review petition as well as a<\/p>\n
writ appeal challenging Ext.P1, both were dismissed.         In<\/p>\n
Writ Appeal No.207\/2008, the 4th respondent was however<\/p>\n
permitted to implead all affected parties in the revision filed<\/p>\n
by him and the STAT was directed to consider the matter<\/p>\n
afresh.\n<\/p>\n
      2. Pursuant to the remand, the revision filed by the 4th<\/p>\n
respondent was considered and was dismissed as per<\/p>\n
Ext.P3.     The 4th respondent challenged Ext.P3 before this<\/p>\n
Court in W.P.(C).No.26646\/2008. As per Ext.P4 judgment,<\/p>\n
this Court permitted the petitioner to file a fresh application<\/p>\n
seeking revision of his own timings. Accordingly the<\/p>\n
petitioner submitted a fresh application. On the basis of his<\/p>\n
request, his timings were re-settled as per Ext.P5. While re-<\/p>\n
settling the timings on 17.6.2009, all interested parties<\/p>\n
including the petitioner were heard. Shortly thereafter, the<\/p>\n
4threspondent submitted an application proposing a variation<\/p>\n
by curtailing a portion of his route.        However, the 1st<\/p>\n
respondent rejected the said application finding that such<\/p>\n
W. P.(C).No.12222 of 2010      3<\/span><\/p>\n
curtailment of a portion of his route would affect the<\/p>\n
traveling public. The 4th respondent thereupon challenged<\/p>\n
the rejection of the application by filing an appeal before the<\/p>\n
STAT as MVAA No.409 of 2007. It is to be noticed that the<\/p>\n
4th respondent did not make the petitioner or the other<\/p>\n
objectors parties to the    said  appeal,     though they had<\/p>\n
participated in the timing conference conducted by the 1st<\/p>\n
respondent on 11.8.2009. The STAT after considering the<\/p>\n
matter allowed the appeal, directed the 1st respondent to<\/p>\n
grant the variation as sought for by the appellant, subject to<\/p>\n
settlement of timings.     The petitioner has filed this   writ<\/p>\n
petition challenging the said judgment, Ext.P7.<\/p>\n
      3. According to the counsel for the petitioner, though<\/p>\n
the petitioner had objected to the request made by the 4th<\/p>\n
respondent for the revision of his timings, in Ext.P7 appeal,<\/p>\n
he had not been made a party. It is pointed out that the<\/p>\n
variation     that was sought,  relates only to a very small<\/p>\n
portion of the route of the 4th respondent and was actually<\/p>\n
intended to achieve the object of procuring a change in the<\/p>\n
W. P.(C).No.12222 of 2010          4<\/span><\/p>\n
timings subject to which the 4th respondent was operating<\/p>\n
his services.\n<\/p>\n
      4.     The counsel for the 4th respondent        Shri.O.D<\/p>\n
Sivadas on the other hand counters the above submissions<\/p>\n
by pointing out that his application was not a request for<\/p>\n
revision of timings        but was one for the variation of his<\/p>\n
permit so as to change the halting place. At the meeting of<\/p>\n
the 1st respondent, though the petitioner was present, he<\/p>\n
had not objected to the variation that was sought. In spite<\/p>\n
of the above,          the 1st respondent had rejected the 4th<\/p>\n
respondent’s application. Since it was the rejection of a<\/p>\n
request for the variation of his permit that was challenged<\/p>\n
in the appeal before the STAT it was not necessary for the<\/p>\n
petitioner to have been made a party to the said appeal.<\/p>\n
Therefore, it is contented that the judgment Ext.P7 was not<\/p>\n
passed behind back of the petitioner. It is also pointed out<\/p>\n
that the petitioner has no right to challenge the variation<\/p>\n
granted to the 4th respondent         as held by this Court in<\/p>\n
various decisions. It is further submitted that the timings<\/p>\n
W. P.(C).No.12222 of 2010        5<\/span><\/p>\n
of the 4th respondent on the varied route have not been<\/p>\n
settled and therefore the grievance if any of the petitioner<\/p>\n
would arise only upon such settlement of his timings. Since<\/p>\n
the petitioner has no grievance to be agitated, it is<\/p>\n
submitted that this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.<\/p>\n
The 4th respondent also relies on the judgment of this Court<\/p>\n
in W.P.(C).No.21282 of 2007 which has been produced as<\/p>\n
Ext.R4(a) along with his counter affidavit.<\/p>\n
      5. The counsel for the petitioner meets the above<\/p>\n
contentions pointing out that though the application of the<\/p>\n
4th respondent was         filed for variation the same was<\/p>\n
intended to obtain the revision of his timings. The object of<\/p>\n
the petitioner was to unsettle the timings that were settled<\/p>\n
as per Ext.P5 after hearing all the affected parties. Since the<\/p>\n
petitioner had also objected before the 1st respondent it is<\/p>\n
pointed out that it was necessary that the petitioner was<\/p>\n
made a party to the appeal that ended in Ext.P7 judgment.<\/p>\n
He also relies on the decision reported in Yusuf V. R.T.A.,<\/p>\n
Ernakulam, (2009 (4) KLT 426) as well as the judgment<\/p>\n
W. P.(C).No.12222 of 2010        6<\/span><\/p>\n
of this Court in W.P.(C).NO.21281\/2007.\n<\/p>\n
      6.     I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner<\/p>\n
Shri.P.Deepak as well as Shri. O.D.Sivadas who appears for<\/p>\n
the 4th respondent.\n<\/p>\n
      7. It is worth noticing that the timings of the 4th<\/p>\n
respondent was initially sought to be revised by an<\/p>\n
application submitted to the 1st respondent, which was<\/p>\n
objected to by the petitioner. After hearing the objections<\/p>\n
of the petitioner also, the timings were settled on<\/p>\n
25.4.2007. However, when the 4th respondent challenged<\/p>\n
the said proceedings in M.V.A.A.No.409 of 2007, the<\/p>\n
petitioner and the other objectors were not made parties to<\/p>\n
the same. For the said reason, as per Ext.P1 judgment, the<\/p>\n
order of the STAT was set aside. In writ appeal, the matter<\/p>\n
was remanded back with a specific direction         to consider<\/p>\n
the revision petition afresh after impleading all the persons<\/p>\n
who had objected to the settlement of the timings of the<\/p>\n
stage carriage of the 4th respondent.      Subsequently      the<\/p>\n
matter was considered by the STAT and as per Ext.P3, the<\/p>\n
W. P.(C).No.12222 of 2010       7<\/span><\/p>\n
revision was dismissed.       The 4th respondent challenged<\/p>\n
Ext.P3     in   W.P.(C).N0.26646\/2008   and   as   per Ext.P4<\/p>\n
judgment, the 4th respondent was permitted to submit a<\/p>\n
fresh application for the revision of his timings. Accordingly<\/p>\n
he submitted a fresh application and         his timings were<\/p>\n
settled as per Ext.P5 on 17.6.2009. It is shortly thereafter,<\/p>\n
that the 4th respondent has moved his application for the<\/p>\n
variation of his permit. The said application was considered<\/p>\n
by the 1st respondent on 11.8.2009 and was rejected. It is<\/p>\n
not disputed that the petitioner was also heard in the<\/p>\n
matter. However, while filing an appeal challenging the said<\/p>\n
proceedings of the 1st respondent the petitioner was not<\/p>\n
made a party by the 4th respondent.\n<\/p>\n
      8. Relying on the decision of this Court     reported in<\/p>\n
Binu Chacho V. R.T.A. Pathanamthitta<\/a> (2006 (2) KLT<\/p>\n
172) it is contended that an existing operator has no right<\/p>\n
to challenge the grant of permit to another operator for<\/p>\n
the only reason that it prejudicially affects his rights. It is<\/p>\n
pointed out that the said dictum has been made applicable<\/p>\n
W. P.(C).No.12222 of 2010       8<\/span><\/p>\n
to the variation of a permit also, as is clear from Ext.R4(a)<\/p>\n
judgment. However, as per the decision reported in Yusuf<\/p>\n
V. R.T.A., Ernakulam, (Supra) it has been held that an<\/p>\n
existing operator has the right to challenge the grant of<\/p>\n
variation of an existing permit, the reason being that the<\/p>\n
grant of such variation does not amount to the issue of a<\/p>\n
fresh permit. The above decision is a later decision that has<\/p>\n
referred to all the above decisions including Ext.R4(a). The<\/p>\n
counsel for the petitioner also relies on the judgment of this<\/p>\n
Court dated 30.7.2007 in W.P.(C) No.21951\/2007 to contend<\/p>\n
that the omission to implead the objectors as parties to an<\/p>\n
appeal      or    revision before   the  STAT    vitiates the<\/p>\n
order\/judgment passed in the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
    9. In the present case, as found above, though the 4th<\/p>\n
respondent has moved an application for the variation of his<\/p>\n
permit, it is not merely an application for variation of his<\/p>\n
permit      but also an attempt to vary his timings.      The<\/p>\n
petitioner though he was heard at the timing conference<\/p>\n
dated       11.8.2009,    was   not    made     a   party  to<\/p>\n
W. P.(C).No.12222 of 2010      9<\/span><\/p>\n
M.V.A.A.No.409\/2009. Since the petitioner was not made a<\/p>\n
party to the same, Ext.P7 judgment is vitiated.<\/p>\n
       10. For the above reasons, the direction contained in<\/p>\n
Ext.P7 to grant the variation as sought for by the appellant<\/p>\n
subject to the settlement of timings is set aside. Since the<\/p>\n
order rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner<\/p>\n
has also been set aside by the STAT, it is sufficient that the<\/p>\n
4th respondent is directed to consider the application afresh<\/p>\n
after considering the objections, if any of the petitioner also.<\/p>\n
                             K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
mns<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court K.P.Muraleedharan vs The Regional Transport Authority on 25 June, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 12222 of 2010(C) 1. K.P.MURALEEDHARAN, … Petitioner Vs 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, … Respondent 2. THE SECRETARY, 3. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 4. K.SAJEEVAN, For Petitioner :SRI.P.DEEPAK For Respondent :SRI.O.D.SIVADAS The Hon’ble […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-147432","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nK.P.Muraleedharan vs The Regional Transport Authority on 25 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-muraleedharan-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-25-june-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K.P.Muraleedharan vs The Regional Transport Authority on 25 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-muraleedharan-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-25-june-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-06-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-21T13:42:13+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-p-muraleedharan-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-25-june-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-p-muraleedharan-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-25-june-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K.P.Muraleedharan vs The Regional Transport Authority on 25 June, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-21T13:42:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-p-muraleedharan-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-25-june-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1595,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-p-muraleedharan-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-25-june-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-p-muraleedharan-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-25-june-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-p-muraleedharan-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-25-june-2010\",\"name\":\"K.P.Muraleedharan vs The Regional Transport Authority on 25 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-21T13:42:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-p-muraleedharan-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-25-june-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-p-muraleedharan-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-25-june-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-p-muraleedharan-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-25-june-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K.P.Muraleedharan vs The Regional Transport Authority on 25 June, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"K.P.Muraleedharan vs The Regional Transport Authority on 25 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-muraleedharan-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-25-june-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K.P.Muraleedharan vs The Regional Transport Authority on 25 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-muraleedharan-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-25-june-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-06-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-21T13:42:13+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-muraleedharan-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-25-june-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-muraleedharan-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-25-june-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K.P.Muraleedharan vs The Regional Transport Authority on 25 June, 2010","datePublished":"2010-06-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-21T13:42:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-muraleedharan-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-25-june-2010"},"wordCount":1595,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-muraleedharan-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-25-june-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-muraleedharan-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-25-june-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-muraleedharan-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-25-june-2010","name":"K.P.Muraleedharan vs The Regional Transport Authority on 25 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-06-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-21T13:42:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-muraleedharan-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-25-june-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-muraleedharan-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-25-june-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-muraleedharan-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-25-june-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K.P.Muraleedharan vs The Regional Transport Authority on 25 June, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/147432","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=147432"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/147432\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=147432"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=147432"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=147432"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}