{"id":217938,"date":"2009-12-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-12-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-gangadharan-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-17-december-2009"},"modified":"2015-05-16T19:47:11","modified_gmt":"2015-05-16T14:17:11","slug":"p-gangadharan-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-17-december-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-gangadharan-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-17-december-2009","title":{"rendered":"P.Gangadharan vs The Regional Transport Authority on 17 December, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Kerala High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">P.Gangadharan vs The Regional Transport Authority on 17 December, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 27041 of 2008(T)\n\n\n1. P.GANGADHARAN, S\/O.PONNUCHAMI,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT\n\n3. SHRI.K.RAVINDRAKUMAR, PROPRIETOR,\n\n4. THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN\n\n Dated :17\/12\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                            S.SIRI JAGAN, J.\n\n                     ==================\n\n                      W.P.(C).No. 27041 of 2008\n\n                     ==================\n\n              Dated this the 17th day of December, 2009\n\n                            J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n<p>      The petitioner is a stage carriage operator. He applied for a<\/p>\n<p>regular permit on the route Palakkad-Palakkad. The application was<\/p>\n<p>considered by the 1st respondent-RTA in its meeting held on 3.8.2007<\/p>\n<p>and permit was granted subject to settlement of timings. Thereafter,<\/p>\n<p>the RTA received a complaint from the 3rd respondent to the effect<\/p>\n<p>that similar request of another operator was rejected in the very same<\/p>\n<p>meeting of the 1st respondent on the ground that the route overlaps a<\/p>\n<p>notified route. Therefore, on the basis of that complaint, the RTA<\/p>\n<p>considered the matter again on 17.9.2007 and, after issuing notice<\/p>\n<p>under Section 86 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act and hearing the<\/p>\n<p>petitioner, the RTA cancelled the permit granted to the petitioner on<\/p>\n<p>the ground that the permit was granted on a mistaken fact by reason<\/p>\n<p>of suppression of fact by the petitioner, regarding violation of a notified<\/p>\n<p>route. The petitioner filed M.V.A.A.No.64\/2008 before the State<\/p>\n<p>Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam. That appeal was rejected by<\/p>\n<p>Ext.P7. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P4 order of the RTA cancelling<\/p>\n<p>the permit and Ext.P7 order of the STAT dismissing the appeal.<\/p>\n<p>      2.    The petitioner raises three contentions. First is that Ext.P4<\/p>\n<p>amounts to review of the RTA&#8217;s own earlier order, for which the RTA<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                    2<\/span><\/p>\n<p>does not have power. The second is that the 3rd respondent on whose<\/p>\n<p>complaint the action was initiated, has no locus standi to challenge the<\/p>\n<p>permit issued to an operator in view of the decision of this Court in<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"\/doc\/970673\/\">Binu Chacko v. R.T.A., Pathanamthitta<\/a> [2006 (2) KLT 172]. Therefore,<\/p>\n<p>the action of the RTA on the basis of the complaint of the 3rd<\/p>\n<p>respondent is without jurisdiction. The third is that the petitioner is not<\/p>\n<p>in any way responsible for the mistake committed by the RTA and<\/p>\n<p>therefore, Section 86 could no have been invoked even assuming that<\/p>\n<p>Ext.P4 order of the RTA was under Section 86.\n<\/p>\n<p>      3.    The learned Government Pleader opposes the contentions<\/p>\n<p>of the petitioner. She points out that Ext.P4 order has been expressly<\/p>\n<p>stated to be passed under Section 86(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act,<\/p>\n<p>although in the agenda, the word, &#8220;review&#8221; is used. Secondly, she<\/p>\n<p>would contend that simply because the suppression of fact by the<\/p>\n<p>petitioner was brought to the notice of the RTA by the 3rd respondent,<\/p>\n<p>the RTA is not incompetent to take into account a complaint filed by<\/p>\n<p>the 3rd respondent to invoke the powers under Section 86 of the Motor<\/p>\n<p>Vehicles Act. Regarding the third contention, she would contend that<\/p>\n<p>the petitioner was very well aware of the fact that the route overlaps a<\/p>\n<p>notified route and therefore, clearly there was misrepresentation of<\/p>\n<p>material fact, which is certainly a ground for invocation of Section 86.<\/p>\n<p>      4.    I have considered the rival contentions in detail.<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                       3<\/span><\/p>\n<p>      5.     I do not find any merit in any of the contentions of the<\/p>\n<p>petitioner. It is true that in Ext.P4 the word, &#8220;review&#8221; is used in the<\/p>\n<p>portion where agenda for the meeting is extracted. But the decision<\/p>\n<p>reads thus:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>          &#8220;Heard. the counsel representing the objector Sri.K.Ravindrakumar<br \/>\n      contradictory decisions were taken by the RTA held on 03.08.2007 in<br \/>\n      item No.26 and 44 respectively, even though the common portion in both<br \/>\n      of the route applied for vide items mentioned above, that is from<br \/>\n      Palakkad Municipal Bus Stand to Tharekkad overlaps the Notified route of<br \/>\n      Palakkad-Kannur. The Regional Transport Authority may cancel a permit<br \/>\n      if it was granted by a misrepresentation as mentioned in section 86(1)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>      (d) of M.V. Act, 1988. Hence the erroneously taken decision in item No.26<br \/>\n      of the RTA dated 03.08.2007 ie. grant of regular permit in respect of S\/C<br \/>\n      kL.10\/P 2207 is cancelled as per section 86(1) (d) of MV Act 1988.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>It gives no room for any doubt that the RTA had invoked the powers<\/p>\n<p>under Section 86 (1) of the Act. Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold<\/p>\n<p>that Ext.P4 order was not in review of the earlier decision, but was<\/p>\n<p>passed in exercise of the powers under Section 86              of   the Motor<\/p>\n<p>Vehicles Act. Of course in Binu Chacko&#8217;s case (supra) this Court held<\/p>\n<p>that an existing operator cannot challenge a permit                granted to<\/p>\n<p>another operator, but that does not mean that the RTA cannot take<\/p>\n<p>into account a complaint filed by an existing operator bringing to the<\/p>\n<p>attention of the RTA a violation of the Act or rules for invoking powers<\/p>\n<p>under Section 86. The RTA can come into knowledge of such violation<\/p>\n<p>only if somebody points it out to the RTA. Simply because the source<\/p>\n<p>of the information is the 3rd respondent, the principle in Binu Chako&#8217;s<\/p>\n<p>case, (supra) does not come into play.             Here the violation and<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                    4<\/span><\/p>\n<p>misrepresentation of fact were brought to the attention of the RTA by<\/p>\n<p>the 3rd respondent, no doubt. But on the basis of that information the<\/p>\n<p>RTA independently considered the matter after obtaining a report from<\/p>\n<p>the enquiry officer, who himself later admitted that the first report was<\/p>\n<p>on the basis of an omission due to oversight. The fact that the route<\/p>\n<p>proposed by the petitioner overlaps a notified route is not disputed<\/p>\n<p>before me. Further, there is a specific finding in Ext.P4 that the<\/p>\n<p>petitioner misrepresented the fact before the RTA          by claiming a<\/p>\n<p>permit in a route which overlaps a notified route. Regarding the third<\/p>\n<p>contention, I do not find any merit, since Section 86 can be invoked if<\/p>\n<p>the holder of the permit has obtained the permit by fraud or<\/p>\n<p>misrepresentation. When there is a specific finding by both the RTA<\/p>\n<p>and the Tribunal that the petitioner had in fact misrepresented the<\/p>\n<p>facts before the RTA, invocation of powers under Section 86 is clearly<\/p>\n<p>within jurisdiction. Therefore, there is no merit in the writ petition and,<\/p>\n<p>accordingly, the same is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                         Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n<pre>sdk+                                               S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE\n\n         \/\/\/True copy\/\/\/\n\n\n\n\n                              P.A. to Judge\n\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">5<\/span>\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Kerala High Court P.Gangadharan vs The Regional Transport Authority on 17 December, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 27041 of 2008(T) 1. P.GANGADHARAN, S\/O.PONNUCHAMI, &#8230; Petitioner Vs 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, &#8230; Respondent 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT 3. SHRI.K.RAVINDRAKUMAR, PROPRIETOR, 4. THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, For Petitioner :SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI [&hellip;]<\/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-217938","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>P.Gangadharan vs The Regional Transport Authority on 17 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/p-gangadharan-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-17-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"P.Gangadharan vs The Regional Transport Authority on 17 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-gangadharan-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-17-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-12-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-16T14:17:11+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=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-gangadharan-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-17-december-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-gangadharan-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-17-december-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"P.Gangadharan vs The Regional Transport Authority on 17 December, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-16T14:17:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-gangadharan-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-17-december-2009\"},\"wordCount\":977,\"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\\\/p-gangadharan-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-17-december-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-gangadharan-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-17-december-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-gangadharan-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-17-december-2009\",\"name\":\"P.Gangadharan vs The Regional Transport Authority on 17 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-16T14:17:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-gangadharan-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-17-december-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-gangadharan-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-17-december-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-gangadharan-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-17-december-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"P.Gangadharan vs The Regional Transport Authority on 17 December, 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":"P.Gangadharan vs The Regional Transport Authority on 17 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/p-gangadharan-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-17-december-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"P.Gangadharan vs The Regional Transport Authority on 17 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-gangadharan-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-17-december-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-12-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-16T14:17:11+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":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-gangadharan-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-17-december-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-gangadharan-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-17-december-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"P.Gangadharan vs The Regional Transport Authority on 17 December, 2009","datePublished":"2009-12-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-16T14:17:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-gangadharan-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-17-december-2009"},"wordCount":977,"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\/p-gangadharan-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-17-december-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-gangadharan-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-17-december-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-gangadharan-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-17-december-2009","name":"P.Gangadharan vs The Regional Transport Authority on 17 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-12-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-16T14:17:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-gangadharan-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-17-december-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-gangadharan-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-17-december-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-gangadharan-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-17-december-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"P.Gangadharan vs The Regional Transport Authority on 17 December, 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\/217938","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=217938"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/217938\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=217938"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=217938"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=217938"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}