{"id":160077,"date":"2009-01-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-01-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-radhika-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-19-january-2009"},"modified":"2016-09-07T15:09:04","modified_gmt":"2016-09-07T09:39:04","slug":"l-radhika-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-19-january-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-radhika-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-19-january-2009","title":{"rendered":"L.Radhika vs The Regional Transport Authority on 19 January, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
L.Radhika vs The Regional Transport Authority on 19 January, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 34902 of 2008(E)\n\n\n1. L.RADHIKA, 18\/1700, K.R.R.A.NO.182,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. SRI.N.S.PRADEEP, VAZHUVELI TIMBERS,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.A.INEES\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC\n\n Dated :19\/01\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                          ANTONY DOMINIC, J.\n                         ==============\n                    W.P.(C) NO. 34902 OF 2008 (E)\n                    ====================\n\n               Dated this the 19th day of January, 2009\n\n                             J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
      The prayer in this writ petition is to quash Ext.P7, a judgment<\/p>\n
rendered by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in MVAA 832\/07.<\/p>\n
Petitioner contends that in the route Pongumoodu-Neeramankara, there<\/p>\n
arose vacancy of a regular permit. According to her, in Ext.P1 guidelines<\/p>\n
framed in 1994 in the matter of grant of regular permits in Trivandrum<\/p>\n
city, which was upheld by this Court in OP 18144\/96 and confirmed in WA<\/p>\n
1865\/96, has laid down the norms which are to be followed by the RTA in<\/p>\n
the grant of permits in the city route. It is stated that although Ext.P1 is<\/p>\n
of 1994, this has been followed in the subsequent occasions also, as is<\/p>\n
seen from Exts. P2 and P3.\n<\/p>\n
      2.     Petitioner  submits   that despite    this  position, the  2nd<\/p>\n
respondent made an application for regular permit in the route mentioned<\/p>\n
above. Ext.P4 is an objection that was filed by a rival aspirant. By Ext.P5<\/p>\n
proceedings, the RTA rejected the application of the 2nd respondent and<\/p>\n
the reason stated is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
       This is a fresh permit. As per notification No.12951\/07 dt
\n       9.5.2007 new permit can only be granted to KSRTC on the
\n       notified area. Hence rejected.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
WPC 34902\/08
\n                                      :2 :<\/span><\/p>\n
      3.      It is stated that aggrieved by Ext.P5, the 2nd respondent filed<\/p>\n
Ext.P6 appeal before the Tribunal, which was allowed as per Ext.P7. The<\/p>\n
relevant portion of the order reads as under.\n<\/p>\n
                In so far as, the route applied for by the appellant
\n         is from out of those 100 city permits. There is no
\n         justification to deny regular permit on the ground of
\n         scheme violation or on the basis of the draft notification
\n         dated 9.5.2007. Int hat view of the matter, I find that
\n         the impugned order refusing the regular permit is illegal
\n         and hence liable to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
                In the result, this appeal is allowed. Setting aside
\n         the impugned order,the 1st respondent is directed to
\n         grant regular permit to the appellant as sought for by
\n         him, subject to settlement of timings.\n<\/p>\n
      4.      Petitioner submits that if at all the Tribunal is to allow the<\/p>\n
appeal, the Tribunal could have only remanded the matter for fresh<\/p>\n
consideration, dealing with the merits of the application made by the 2nd<\/p>\n
respondent and that the Tribunal could not have assumed the role of the<\/p>\n
RTA against the mandate contained in Rule 20 of the STAT Rules. Counsel<\/p>\n
also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in WP(C) No.34437\/03<\/p>\n
in relation to the city permits in Kochi city and contended that if any fresh<\/p>\n
permit is to be granted, the same should be notified and applications<\/p>\n
invited and considered.\n<\/p>\n
      5.      Yet another contention raised was that the grant of permit in<\/p>\n
the city routes can only be in terms of Ext.P1 and that in terms of Ext.P1,<\/p>\n
WPC 34902\/08
\n                                     :3 :<\/span><\/p>\n
the 2nd respondent is an ineligible candidate.<\/p>\n
        6.    Counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent. In the<\/p>\n
counter affidavit, it is contended by the 2nd respondent that in the route<\/p>\n
mentioned above, a regular permit was granted by the RTA and that the<\/p>\n
operator had defaulted service. It is stated that in the default vacancy,<\/p>\n
the 2nd respondent applied for temporary permit and Ext.R2(a) is the first<\/p>\n
temporary permit that was granted to him w.e.f. 20\/5\/2003. It is stated<\/p>\n
that since then he has been continuously operating in the route on<\/p>\n
temporary permits.\n<\/p>\n
        7.    In the meanwhile, regular permit granted has expired and that<\/p>\n
the operator did not apply for its renewal. It is stated that during all this<\/p>\n
period, none other than him, had applied for permit either temporary or<\/p>\n
regular in the route in question and therefore he was being issued<\/p>\n
temporary permits successively.\n<\/p>\n
        8.    When he made application for regular permit, that was<\/p>\n
considered by the RTA on 20th of March, 2007 and there was no objection.<\/p>\n
It is is stated that the proceedings were adjourned to the next meeting and<\/p>\n
the matter came up for consideration before the RTA again on 19\/9\/2007.<\/p>\n
According to the 2nd respondent, at no point of time, petitioner made any<\/p>\n
application for temporary permit or regular permit or even raised any<\/p>\n
WPC 34902\/08
\n                                      :4 :<\/span><\/p>\n
objection against granting the permit to the 2nd respondent.<\/p>\n
       9.    It is stated that despite all this, the RTA by Ext.P5 rejected the<\/p>\n
application on the ground that the route in question was covered by the<\/p>\n
draft notification dated 9\/5\/2007. It is stated that aggrieved by Ext.P5, he<\/p>\n
filed a statutory appeal before the Tribunal impleading the KSRTC also as a<\/p>\n
respondent. The appeal was heard and the Tribunal allowed the appeal<\/p>\n
as per Ext.P7 and rejected the grant in favour of the 2nd respondent. It is<\/p>\n
stated that there is absolutely no bonafides in the contentions raised.<\/p>\n
       10.   On facts, it can therefore be seen that since 20\/5\/2003, the<\/p>\n
2nd respondent has been operating on the route on the strength of<\/p>\n
temporary permits.      At no point of time has the petitioner made any<\/p>\n
application either for regular permit or temporary permit. Even before the<\/p>\n
RTA, when the application made by the 2nd respondent came up for<\/p>\n
consideration in the meeting of 19\/9\/07, petitioner has no case that she<\/p>\n
has raised any objection. On the other hand, she is relying on Ext.P4<\/p>\n
objection field by yet another stranger.\n<\/p>\n
       11.   A reading of Ext.P5 shows that the only reason on the basis of<\/p>\n
which the RTA rejected the application of the 2nd respondent was that the<\/p>\n
route in question was covered by the notification dated 9\/5\/2007.<\/p>\n
Necessarily, therefore, in the appeal filed against Ext.P5, the Tribunal was<\/p>\n
WPC 34902\/08
\n                                      :5 :<\/span><\/p>\n
called upon to decide the correctness of the reason assigned by the RTA. A<\/p>\n
reading of Ext.P7 shows that the Tribunal held that though notification in<\/p>\n
question covers the route as well, since what was applied for by the 2nd<\/p>\n
respondent was one out of the 100 city permits granted in 1994, the<\/p>\n
notification is irrelevant. This conclusion by the STAT cannot be assailed.<\/p>\n
Since the Tribunal overruled the only ground on which permit was<\/p>\n
rejected, as a necessary consequence, Tribunal moulded relief by directing<\/p>\n
grant of permit in favour of the 2nd respondent.<\/p>\n
       12.   On facts, I do not think that this Court should exercise the<\/p>\n
discretionary jurisdiction in a case like this where the petitioner was<\/p>\n
nowhere in the picture until the writ petition is filed.<\/p>\n
       13.   I am also not interested by the argument that Rule 20 of the<\/p>\n
Tribunal Rules is attracted. A reading of the rule shows that the Tribunal is<\/p>\n
prohibited from exercising the original power of the RTA. But then, here in<\/p>\n
this case, Ext.P7 reflects the exercise of appellate power and that is not hit<\/p>\n
by Rule 20.\n<\/p>\n
       I am not persuaded to interfere. Writ petition fails and is dismissed.<\/p>\n
                                               ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
\nRp<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court L.Radhika vs The Regional Transport Authority on 19 January, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 34902 of 2008(E) 1. L.RADHIKA, 18\/1700, K.R.R.A.NO.182, … Petitioner Vs 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, … Respondent 2. SRI.N.S.PRADEEP, VAZHUVELI TIMBERS, For Petitioner :SRI.A.INEES For Respondent :SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR The Hon’ble MR. Justice ANTONY […]<\/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-160077","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nL.Radhika vs The Regional Transport Authority on 19 January, 2009 - 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\/l-radhika-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-19-january-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"L.Radhika vs The Regional Transport Authority on 19 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-radhika-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-19-january-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-01-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-07T09:39:04+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/l-radhika-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-19-january-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/l-radhika-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-19-january-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"L.Radhika vs The Regional Transport Authority on 19 January, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-07T09:39:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/l-radhika-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-19-january-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1136,\"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\\\/l-radhika-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-19-january-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/l-radhika-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-19-january-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/l-radhika-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-19-january-2009\",\"name\":\"L.Radhika vs The Regional Transport Authority on 19 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-07T09:39:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/l-radhika-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-19-january-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/l-radhika-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-19-january-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/l-radhika-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-19-january-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"L.Radhika vs The Regional Transport Authority on 19 January, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"L.Radhika vs The Regional Transport Authority on 19 January, 2009 - 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\/l-radhika-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-19-january-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"L.Radhika vs The Regional Transport Authority on 19 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-radhika-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-19-january-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-01-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-07T09:39:04+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-radhika-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-19-january-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-radhika-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-19-january-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"L.Radhika vs The Regional Transport Authority on 19 January, 2009","datePublished":"2009-01-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-07T09:39:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-radhika-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-19-january-2009"},"wordCount":1136,"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\/l-radhika-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-19-january-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-radhika-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-19-january-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-radhika-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-19-january-2009","name":"L.Radhika vs The Regional Transport Authority on 19 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-01-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-07T09:39:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-radhika-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-19-january-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-radhika-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-19-january-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-radhika-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-19-january-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"L.Radhika vs The Regional Transport Authority on 19 January, 2009"}]},{"@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\/160077","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=160077"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/160077\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=160077"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=160077"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=160077"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}