{"id":39740,"date":"2010-10-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-r-babudas-vs-the-kerala-state-road-transport-on-1-october-2010"},"modified":"2016-08-31T18:14:49","modified_gmt":"2016-08-31T12:44:49","slug":"n-r-babudas-vs-the-kerala-state-road-transport-on-1-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-r-babudas-vs-the-kerala-state-road-transport-on-1-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"N.R.Babudas vs The Kerala State Road Transport on 1 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
N.R.Babudas vs The Kerala State Road Transport on 1 October, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRP.No. 486 of 2010()\n\n\n1. N.R.BABUDAS, S\/O.RAMAN NAIR\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n\n3. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY\n\n4. THE SECRETARY,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.DEEPAK\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN\n\n Dated :01\/10\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n      THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ.\n        - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                R.P. No. 486 of 2010 in W.A. 1270 of 2009 &\n                  R.P. No.544 of 2010 in W.A. 1307 of 2009.\n        - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                   Dated this the 1st day of October , 2010.\n\n                                            ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
Bhavadasan, J,<\/p>\n
           The petitioners in W.P.(C) No.28386 of 2008 and<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No. 29984 of 2008 seek review of the judgment in<\/p>\n
W.A. No.1270 of 2009 and other connected cases, which<\/p>\n
were disposed of on 1.12.2009.\n<\/p>\n
           2. The matter related to grant of permits under<\/p>\n
Section 104 of the Motor Vehicles Act. A learned Single<\/p>\n
Judge of this court had while disposing of a batch of writ<\/p>\n
petitions raising similar contentions observed as follows:<\/p>\n
           “For these reasons, I am of the view that the<\/p>\n
     issue requires reconsideration by the Regional<\/p>\n
     Transport Authority. Accordingly, the writ petition<\/p>\n
     [W.P.(C) No.28386\/08] is allowed in part. Exts.P5<\/p>\n
     and P9 are set aside. The application for re-issue<\/p>\n
     of Temporary Permits submitted by the petitioner<\/p>\n
     herein shall be considered by the Regional<\/p>\n
     Transport Authority, Ernakulam, in accordance<\/p>\n
     with law and in the light of the observations<\/p>\n
R.P. 486 & 544\/2010.            2<\/span><\/p>\n
      contained in this judgment, after notice to the<\/p>\n
      petitioners    as  well  as   the   4th    respondent<\/p>\n
      Corporation. Fresh orders shall be passed within<\/p>\n
      one month from the date of receipt of a copy of<\/p>\n
      this judgment.”<\/p>\n
Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the<\/p>\n
Kerala State Road Transport Corporation              (hereinafter<\/p>\n
referred to as KSRTC) came up in appeal before this court in<\/p>\n
various Writ Appeals. Their main grievance was that the<\/p>\n
routes, through which the petitioners sought temporary<\/p>\n
permits were notified routes, they touched two intermediate<\/p>\n
points and also that they fell within the Scheme. There was<\/p>\n
a    total   prohibition, which   prevented      the  authorities<\/p>\n
concerned from issuing any sort of permit to anyone other<\/p>\n
than KSRTC.         This court, accepted the contention put<\/p>\n
forward by the KSRTC and allowed the writ appeals setting<\/p>\n
aside the        judgment of the learned Single Judge and<\/p>\n
dismissed the writ petitions.\n<\/p>\n
             3. In these review petitions, it is pointed out that<\/p>\n
while     the writ    appeals were being considered, it was<\/p>\n
R.P. 486 & 544\/2010.          3<\/span><\/p>\n
omitted to refer to the proviso to Section 104 of the Motor<\/p>\n
Vehicles Act, which enables the authorities concerned to<\/p>\n
grant temporary permits over notified routes till the State<\/p>\n
Transport Corporation applies for permit over those routes.<\/p>\n
It is pointed out that it is not in dispute that the routes<\/p>\n
through which the writ petitioners seek permit are also<\/p>\n
notified routes and also that there is no case for the KSRTC<\/p>\n
that they had applied for permit for these routes. According<\/p>\n
to the review petitioners, even if the route is a notified one,<\/p>\n
and also the routes over which they seek permits pass<\/p>\n
through two or more intermediate points, till the State<\/p>\n
Transport Corporation applies, it is possible for the<\/p>\n
authorities to grant temporary permits.           The review<\/p>\n
petitioners say that it is not disputed that     currently the<\/p>\n
State Transport Corporation has not applied for permits over<\/p>\n
the routes, through which temporary permits are sought. It<\/p>\n
is conceded that once the STC        applies, the temporary<\/p>\n
permits cease to be in force. The above aspect, according to<\/p>\n
them, was not taken note of by the Division Bench of this<\/p>\n
R.P. 486 & 544\/2010.              4<\/span><\/p>\n
court while pronouncing the judgment in the Writ Appeals,<\/p>\n
and that is an error apparent on the face of the record. In<\/p>\n
support of their contention that it may be possible to grant<\/p>\n
temporary permits, they relied on the judgment in W.A. 188<\/p>\n
of 1986 of this court and also the decision reported in<\/p>\n
Punjab Roadways v. Punja Sahib Bus & Transport Co.<\/a><\/p>\n
((2010) 5 SCC 235).\n<\/p>\n
             4.     Learned counsel appearing for the KSRTC<\/p>\n
contended that no error has been committed by this court in<\/p>\n
allowing the writ appeals and dismissing the writ petitions.<\/p>\n
The routes over which the petitioners seek temporary<\/p>\n
permits admittedly touch two intermediate points and it is a<\/p>\n
notified route. According to the learned counsel, along the<\/p>\n
notified routes only the KSRTC can seek permit for plying the<\/p>\n
vehicles.       Therefore,   it is contended that the review<\/p>\n
petitions are without merits and they are liable to be<\/p>\n
dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
             5. It is true that the proviso to Section 104 of the<\/p>\n
Motor Vehicles Act is not referred to in the decision of the<\/p>\n
R.P. 486 & 544\/2010.            5<\/span><\/p>\n
Division Bench in the writ appeals. The decision proceeds on<\/p>\n
the basis that being a notified route, only the KSRTC is<\/p>\n
entitled to seek permit and there is a total prohibition as per<\/p>\n
the scheme.\n<\/p>\n
             6. Section 104 of the Motor Vehicles Act reads as<\/p>\n
follows:\n<\/p>\n
      “104.       Restriction on grant of permits in<\/p>\n
      respect of a notified area or notified route:-<\/p>\n
      Where        a scheme has been published under<\/p>\n
      sub-section (3) of Section 100 in respect of any<\/p>\n
      notified area or notified route, the State Transport<\/p>\n
      Authority or the Regional Transport Authority, as<\/p>\n
      the case may be, shall not grant any permit<\/p>\n
      except in accordance with the provisions of the<\/p>\n
      scheme:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             Provided that where no application for a<\/p>\n
      permit has been made by the State transport<\/p>\n
      undertaking in respect of     any notified area or<\/p>\n
      notified route in pursuance of an approved<\/p>\n
      scheme, the State Transport Authority or the<\/p>\n
      Regional Transport Authority, as the case may be,<\/p>\n
      may grant temporary permit to any person in<\/p>\n
      respect of     such notified area or notified route<\/p>\n
R.P. 486 & 544\/2010.             6<\/span><\/p>\n
      subject to the condition that such permit shall<\/p>\n
      cease to be effective on the issue of a permit to<\/p>\n
      the State transport undertaking in respect of that<\/p>\n
      area or route.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
Going by the proviso, it would appear that even if the route<\/p>\n
is a notified one, it may be possible for the authorities<\/p>\n
concerned, if they so feel, to consider whether temporary<\/p>\n
permits could be granted as long as no application for<\/p>\n
permit along those notified routes had been made by the<\/p>\n
State Transport Corporation. The proviso also states that in<\/p>\n
cases where such temporary permits are granted, they will<\/p>\n
cease to have any effect as soon as permit is granted to the<\/p>\n
State Transport Corporation.\n<\/p>\n
             7. In the decision in W.A. 188 of 1986 disposed of<\/p>\n
by judgment dated 16.12.1986, it was mentioned as follows:<\/p>\n
                    “For the reasons stated above, this<\/p>\n
      appeal is allowed, the judgment of the learned<\/p>\n
      Single Judge is set aside, the order of the State<\/p>\n
      Transport Appellate Tribunal and the Regional<\/p>\n
      Transport       Authority are  quashed    and   the<\/p>\n
R.P. 486 & 544\/2010.            7<\/span><\/p>\n
      application of the 2nd respondent for grant of a<\/p>\n
      pucca      stage  carriage  permit   is  dismissed<\/p>\n
      reserving liberty in the 2nd respondent to invoke<\/p>\n
      the proviso to Section 68 FF of the Act and seek<\/p>\n
      grant of temporary permit. We also direct that<\/p>\n
      the 2nd respondent will be permitted to operate<\/p>\n
      the service for a period of two months from this<\/p>\n
      date on the relevant route in question.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             8.     In the decision reported in        Punjab<\/p>\n
Roadways, case it is observed as follows:<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             “The    above  mentioned   provision  states<\/p>\n
      where       a scheme has been published under<\/p>\n
      sub-section (3) of Section 100 in respect of any<\/p>\n
      notified area or notified route, the STA or the RTA<\/p>\n
      a the case may be, shall not grant any permit<\/p>\n
      except in accordance with the provisions of the<\/p>\n
      scheme. An exception has been carved out in the<\/p>\n
      proviso      to Section  104  stating,   where   no<\/p>\n
      application for permit has been made by the STU<\/p>\n
      in respect of any notified area or notified route in<\/p>\n
      pursuance of an approved scheme, the STA or the<\/p>\n
      RTA, as the case may be, may grant temporary<\/p>\n
      permits to any person in respect of any such<\/p>\n
      notified route subject to the condition that such<\/p>\n
R.P. 486 & 544\/2010.            8<\/span><\/p>\n
      permit shall cease to be effective on the issue of<\/p>\n
      permit to the STU in respect of that area or route.<\/p>\n
      In our view, same is the situation in respect of a<\/p>\n
      case where an STU in spite of grant of permit does<\/p>\n
      not operate the service or surrenders the permit<\/p>\n
      granted or is not utilizing the permit. In such a<\/p>\n
      situation, it should be deemed that no application<\/p>\n
      for permit has been made by the STU and it is<\/p>\n
      open to the RTA to grant temporary permit if<\/p>\n
      there is a temporary need. By granting regular<\/p>\n
      permits to the private operators the RTA will be<\/p>\n
      upsetting the ratio fixed under the scheme which<\/p>\n
      is legally impermissible.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             In Anwar Ahmed this Court had occasion to<\/p>\n
      examine the scope of the proviso to Section 104<\/p>\n
      and held as follows:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             “7. It would, therefore, be seen that where<\/p>\n
      the scheme has been published under sub-section<\/p>\n
      (3) of Section 100 in respect of any notified area<\/p>\n
      or notified route, the State Transport Authority or<\/p>\n
      the Regional Transport Authority, as the case may<\/p>\n
      be,       shall not grant any permit except in<\/p>\n
      accordance with the provisions of the scheme.<\/p>\n
      Thus, the appellant Corporation has the exclusive<\/p>\n
      right or monopoly to ply their stage carriages and<\/p>\n
R.P. 486 & 544\/2010.           9<\/span><\/p>\n
      obtain the required permit as per the scheme.<\/p>\n
      The proviso gives only a limited breath of life,<\/p>\n
      namely, until the Corporation puts the vehicles on<\/p>\n
      the notified routes as per the scheme, temporary<\/p>\n
      permits may be granted to private operators.<\/p>\n
      Thereby,      it would be  clear  the   temporary<\/p>\n
      inconvenience to travelling public is sought to be<\/p>\n
      averted till the permits are taken and vehicles<\/p>\n
      are put on the route by the appellant. Therefore,<\/p>\n
      the temporary permits will have only limited<\/p>\n
      breath of life. “<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
             9.    The apex court while rendering the above<\/p>\n
decision has taken note of the hardship and inconvenience<\/p>\n
that may be caused to the people due to the failure on the<\/p>\n
part of the State Transport Corporation concerned to ply<\/p>\n
vehicles through all the notified routes, though permit is<\/p>\n
taken. There may be instances also where they may not<\/p>\n
operate services in the route. Whatever that be, the fact<\/p>\n
remains that the apex court has observed that even in the<\/p>\n
notified routes, as long as the State Transport Corporation<\/p>\n
R.P. 486 & 544\/2010.           10<\/span><\/p>\n
do not apply for permits, it is open to the authorities<\/p>\n
concerned to consider if temporary permits can be issued.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             10. There is no reason as to why the principle<\/p>\n
laid down in the above decisions based on the proviso to<\/p>\n
Section 104 of the Motor Vehicles Act should not be<\/p>\n
accepted in these cases also.\n<\/p>\n
             Accordingly, these review petitions are allowed,<\/p>\n
the common judgment in the writ appeals are set aside and<\/p>\n
the judgment of the learned Single Judge is restored.<\/p>\n
                            Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan,
\n                                       Judge<\/p>\n
                                  P. Bhavadasan,
\n                                        Judge<\/p>\n
sb.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court N.R.Babudas vs The Kerala State Road Transport on 1 October, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RP.No. 486 of 2010() 1. N.R.BABUDAS, S\/O.RAMAN NAIR … Petitioner Vs 1. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT … Respondent 2. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 3. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY 4. THE SECRETARY, For […]<\/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-39740","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nN.R.Babudas vs The Kerala State Road Transport on 1 October, 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\/n-r-babudas-vs-the-kerala-state-road-transport-on-1-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"N.R.Babudas vs The Kerala State Road Transport on 1 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-r-babudas-vs-the-kerala-state-road-transport-on-1-october-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=\"2010-09-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-31T12:44:49+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-r-babudas-vs-the-kerala-state-road-transport-on-1-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-r-babudas-vs-the-kerala-state-road-transport-on-1-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"N.R.Babudas vs The Kerala State Road Transport on 1 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-31T12:44:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-r-babudas-vs-the-kerala-state-road-transport-on-1-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1704,\"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\\\/n-r-babudas-vs-the-kerala-state-road-transport-on-1-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-r-babudas-vs-the-kerala-state-road-transport-on-1-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-r-babudas-vs-the-kerala-state-road-transport-on-1-october-2010\",\"name\":\"N.R.Babudas vs The Kerala State Road Transport on 1 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-31T12:44:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-r-babudas-vs-the-kerala-state-road-transport-on-1-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-r-babudas-vs-the-kerala-state-road-transport-on-1-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-r-babudas-vs-the-kerala-state-road-transport-on-1-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"N.R.Babudas vs The Kerala State Road Transport on 1 October, 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":"N.R.Babudas vs The Kerala State Road Transport on 1 October, 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\/n-r-babudas-vs-the-kerala-state-road-transport-on-1-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"N.R.Babudas vs The Kerala State Road Transport on 1 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-r-babudas-vs-the-kerala-state-road-transport-on-1-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-31T12:44:49+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-r-babudas-vs-the-kerala-state-road-transport-on-1-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-r-babudas-vs-the-kerala-state-road-transport-on-1-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"N.R.Babudas vs The Kerala State Road Transport on 1 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-31T12:44:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-r-babudas-vs-the-kerala-state-road-transport-on-1-october-2010"},"wordCount":1704,"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\/n-r-babudas-vs-the-kerala-state-road-transport-on-1-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-r-babudas-vs-the-kerala-state-road-transport-on-1-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-r-babudas-vs-the-kerala-state-road-transport-on-1-october-2010","name":"N.R.Babudas vs The Kerala State Road Transport on 1 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-31T12:44:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-r-babudas-vs-the-kerala-state-road-transport-on-1-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-r-babudas-vs-the-kerala-state-road-transport-on-1-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-r-babudas-vs-the-kerala-state-road-transport-on-1-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"N.R.Babudas vs The Kerala State Road Transport on 1 October, 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\/39740","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=39740"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39740\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=39740"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=39740"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=39740"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}