{"id":5698,"date":"2010-06-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-06-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-sivasubramanian-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-17-june-2010"},"modified":"2018-04-23T23:09:43","modified_gmt":"2018-04-23T17:39:43","slug":"b-sivasubramanian-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-17-june-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-sivasubramanian-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-17-june-2010","title":{"rendered":"B.Sivasubramanian vs The Regional Transport Authority on 17 June, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">B.Sivasubramanian vs The Regional Transport Authority on 17 June, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 17\/06\/2010\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN\n\nW.P(MD)No.4017 of 2010\n&amp;\nM.P.(MD)No.1 of 2010\n\n\nB.Sivasubramanian\t\t       \t\t..Petitioner\n\n\nVs\n\n1.The Regional Transport Authority,\n  Madurai (South)\n  Madurai.\n\n2.The Secretary,\n  The Regional Transport Authority,\n  Madurai (South)\n  Madurai.\t\t       \t\t\t..Respondents\n\n\nPRAYER\n\nWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,\npraying to issue a Writ of  Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records\nrelating to the impugned order in R.C.No.2493\/A3\/2008 dated 26-11-2009 passed by\nthe first respondent and quash the same and consequently directing the\nrespondents to implement the order passed in MTV 775\/2005 dated 06-10-2007\nthereby permitting the petitioner to ply from Tirumangalam Bus Stand to\nUsilampatti Bus Stand.\n\n!For Petitioner   ... M\/s.S.M.S.Jonny Basha\n^For Respondents  ... Mr.S.C.Herold Singh,\n\t\t      Govt.Advocate.\n\t\t    \t\n:ORDER\t\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThe petitioner is a private bus operator plying stage carriage in the<br \/>\nroute Thirumangalam Police Station to Usilampatti Bus Stand via Santhangudi,<br \/>\nPannigundu, Nakkalakottai, Thummagundu, Sindhupatti and T.Vilakku and possesses<br \/>\na permit in respect of a bus bearing Registration No.TN 58 J 1003.  Earlier the<br \/>\nstage carriage permit for the above route was owned by one M.Perumal and the<br \/>\npermit was granted to run the bus from Chinnakattalai to Nakkalakottai.  In the<br \/>\nyear 1996, the said M.Perumal applied for variation of permit conditions from<br \/>\nThirumangalam Police Station to Usilampatti Bus Stand via Santhangui,<br \/>\nPannigundu, Nakkalakottai, Thummagundu, Sindhupatti and T.Vilakku.  The first<br \/>\nrespondent granted the variation of permit.  Thereafter, by virtue of Act 19\/96,<br \/>\nthe Government cancelled all the variations granted by the various Regional<br \/>\nTransport Authorities and that was challenged before the Principal seat at<br \/>\nMadras and all the writ petitions were allowed directing the Government to<br \/>\nimplement the variations granted by the Regional Transport Authorities.  The<br \/>\nsaid M.Perumal was also permitted to run the bus through the route varied by the<br \/>\nauthorities and he applied for further variation on 12.11.2005, to extend the<br \/>\nroute from Thirumangalam Police Station to Thirumangalam Bus Stand on the ground<br \/>\nof obviating the difficulties of the public to change the bus.  That application<br \/>\nwas rejected on 06-12-2005 and aggrieved by the same, the said M.Perumal filed<br \/>\nthe Appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Chennai.  During the<br \/>\npendency of the appeal, the  permit was transferred to the petitioner by the<br \/>\nproceeding of the Second respondent dated 22-08-2007.  The vehicle bearing<br \/>\nRegistration No.49 E 7007 was also replaced by vehicle bearing Registration<br \/>\nNo.TN 58 J 1003.  The State Transport  Appellate Tribunal by order in MVA<br \/>\nNo.775\/2005 allowed the appeal on 06-10-2007 and by virtue of order, the<br \/>\nvariation of condition of the permit sought for by the original holder M.Perumal<br \/>\nwas granted and the respondents were directed to issue the permit with such<br \/>\nvariation within two weeks.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2.Thereafter, on the basis of transfer of permit, the petitioner applied<br \/>\nto the respondents to implement the order passed by the State Transport<br \/>\nAppellate Tribunal to permit the vehicle from Thirumangalam Police Station to<br \/>\nThirumangalam Bus Stand and on the basis of the opinion of the learned<br \/>\nAdditional Government Pleader, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, the<br \/>\napplication of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the petitioner was<br \/>\nnot a party to the  Appeal No.MVA 775\/2005 and therefore, he is not entitled to<br \/>\nthe benefit of the appeal order.  This order of the first respondent dated 26-<br \/>\n11-2009 is challenged in this writ petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3.Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the<br \/>\nrespondents and he submitted that as the petitioner was not a party  to the<br \/>\nappeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, he is not entitled to the<br \/>\nbenefit of the order and therefore, the order of the first respondent is correct<br \/>\nand the writ petition has to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4.According to me, the order of the first respondent cannot be sustained<br \/>\nin law.  It is admitted that the petitioner purchased the vehicle during the<br \/>\npendency of the appeal and therefore, he is a person bound by the result of the<br \/>\nappeal.  As per Section 72(2)(xxii) of Motor Vehicles Act, the Regional<br \/>\nTransport Authority has got power to vary  the permit or attach to the permit<br \/>\nfurther conditions and Section 80 deals with the Procedure in applying for and<br \/>\ngranting permits.  Further, under Section 82 of the Motor Vehicles Act, a permit<br \/>\nholder is entitled to transfer the permit with the approval of the authority and<br \/>\nin this case, by the proceedings of the second respondent dated 22-08-2007, the<br \/>\npermit granted in respect of vehicle No.TN 49 E 7007  was allowed to be replaced<br \/>\nby another vehicle TN 58 J 1003 with effect from 21-03-2007 subject to the list<br \/>\nof conditions already attached to the permit and by similar proceedings dated<br \/>\n22-08-2007 by the second respondent in P.C.No.03\/Ms\/2006, the permit was<br \/>\ntransferred from the earlier owner M.Perumal to the petitioner<br \/>\nB.Sivasubramanian.  Further by proceedings dated 02-03-2006 of the first<br \/>\nrespondent the permit is valid upto 21-03-2011.  Therefore, it is seen from the<br \/>\nsecond respondent&#8217;s proceedings that the petitioner is the valid owner of the<br \/>\npermit and transfer of permit in the name of the petitioner was also approved by<br \/>\nthe second respondent.  It is also admitted that during the pendency of the<br \/>\nappeal, the transfer had taken place  and therefore the question that arises for<br \/>\nconsideration is whether the transferee is entitled to the benefit of the appeal<br \/>\norder when he was not a party to the said appeal in MVA 775\/2005.  In this<br \/>\nconnection we will have to  see the provision of Order 22 Rule 10 Code of Civil<br \/>\nProcedure.  Order 22 Rule 10 is as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>ORDER 22 RULE 10: Procedure in case of assignment before final order in suit-(1)<br \/>\nIn other cases of an assignment, creation or devolution of any interest during<br \/>\nthe pendency of  a suit, the suit may, be leave of the Court, be continued by or<br \/>\nagainst the person to or upon whom such interest has come or devolved.<br \/>\n\t(2)The attachment of a decree pending an appeal therefrom shall be de<br \/>\ndeemed to be an interest entitling the person who procured such attachment to<br \/>\nthe benefit of sub-rule(1).\n<\/p>\n<p>It has been held by the Honourable Supreme Court in the judgment Howrah Daw<br \/>\nMangla Hat B.B.Samity -Vs- Pronab Kumar Daw reported in (2001)6 SCC 534 as<br \/>\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;Order 22 Rule 10 CPC is based on the principle that the trial of a suit<br \/>\ncannot be brought to an end merely because the interest of a party in the<br \/>\nsubject matter of the suit has devolved upon another during its pendency but<br \/>\nsuch a suit may be continued with the leave of the court by or against the<br \/>\nperson upon whom such interest has devolved.  But, if no such step is taken, the<br \/>\nsuit may be continued with the original party and the person upon whom the<br \/>\ninterest has devolved will be bound by and can have the benefit of the decree,<br \/>\nas the case may be, unless it is shown in a properly constituted proceeding that<br \/>\nthe original party being no longer interested in the proceeding did not<br \/>\nvigorously prosecute or colluded with the adversary resulting in decision<br \/>\nadverse to the party upon whom the interest had devolved.  &#8230;..<br \/>\n\tUnder Rule 10 Order 22 of the Code, when there has been a devolution of<br \/>\ninterest during the pendency of a suit, the suit may, by leave of the court, be<br \/>\ncontinued by or against persons upon whom  such interest has devolved and this<br \/>\nentitles the person who has acquired an interest in the subject-matter of the<br \/>\nlitigation by an assignment or creation or devolution of interest pendente lite<br \/>\nor suitor or any other person interested, to apply to the court for leave to<br \/>\ncontinue the suit.  But it does not follow that it is obligatory upon them to do<br \/>\nso.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Therefore, as per the aforesaid judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court,  even<br \/>\nin the absence of the purchaser pendente lite not being made a party to the<br \/>\nsuit, the suit may be continued with the original party and the person upon whom<br \/>\ninterest is devolved is bound by the decree and he can claim the benefit of the<br \/>\ndecree.  In this case, as stated supra, the permit was transferred in the name<br \/>\nof the petitioner by the respondents and therefore, the petitioner even though<br \/>\nwas not a party to the Appeal, is bound by the order passed by the State<br \/>\nTransport Appellate Tribunal, he can also get the benefit of the order.<br \/>\nTherefore, the order of the first respondent that the transferor M.Perumal has<br \/>\nno locus standi in prosecuting the appeal as already he transferred the permit<br \/>\nduring the pendency of the appeal and therefore, the petitioner cannot ask for<br \/>\nimplementation of the order, is not legally correct.  A transferee pendente lite<br \/>\nis entitled to the benefit of the order passed and in this case, admittedly the<br \/>\npermit was transferred to the second respondent during the pendency of the<br \/>\nappeal.  Further, permit is not the personal right of the owner and it is just<br \/>\nlike other property which can be transferred under law.   The Motor Vehicles Act<br \/>\nalso permits the transfer of permits and therefore, when a person lawfully<br \/>\ntransfers the permits to another person and the transfer is also approved by the<br \/>\nauthorities, the transferee of the permit is entitled to all the benefits<br \/>\nattached to the permit and in this case, the appeal filed by the earlier owner<br \/>\nof the permit was allowed and variation was granted and hence, the writ<br \/>\npetitioner is also entitled to the benefit of the appellate order.  Hence, the<br \/>\norder of the first respondent is not in accordance with under law and it is set<br \/>\naside and the first respondent is directed to grant variation in respect of the<br \/>\npermit granted to the petitioner as per the order of the first respondent in MTV<br \/>\n775\/2005 dated 06-10-2007.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5.In the result, the writ petition is allowed.  No costs.  No costs.<br \/>\nConsequently, connected M.P(MD)No.1 of 2010 is closed.\n<\/p>\n<p>gsr<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.The Regional Transport Authority,<br \/>\n  Madurai (South)<br \/>\n  Madurai.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The Secretary,<br \/>\n  The Regional Transport Authority,<br \/>\n  Madurai (South)  Madurai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court B.Sivasubramanian vs The Regional Transport Authority on 17 June, 2010 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 17\/06\/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN W.P(MD)No.4017 of 2010 &amp; M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2010 B.Sivasubramanian ..Petitioner Vs 1.The Regional Transport Authority, Madurai (South) Madurai. 2.The Secretary, The Regional Transport Authority, Madurai (South) Madurai. ..Respondents [&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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5698","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>B.Sivasubramanian vs The Regional Transport Authority on 17 June, 2010 - 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\/b-sivasubramanian-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-17-june-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"B.Sivasubramanian vs The Regional Transport Authority on 17 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-sivasubramanian-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-17-june-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-06-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-23T17:39:43+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\\\/b-sivasubramanian-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-17-june-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-sivasubramanian-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-17-june-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"B.Sivasubramanian vs The Regional Transport Authority on 17 June, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-23T17:39:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-sivasubramanian-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-17-june-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1567,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-sivasubramanian-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-17-june-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-sivasubramanian-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-17-june-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-sivasubramanian-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-17-june-2010\",\"name\":\"B.Sivasubramanian vs The Regional Transport Authority on 17 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-23T17:39:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-sivasubramanian-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-17-june-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-sivasubramanian-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-17-june-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-sivasubramanian-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-17-june-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"B.Sivasubramanian vs The Regional Transport Authority on 17 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":"B.Sivasubramanian vs The Regional Transport Authority on 17 June, 2010 - 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\/b-sivasubramanian-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-17-june-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"B.Sivasubramanian vs The Regional Transport Authority on 17 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-sivasubramanian-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-17-june-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-06-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-23T17:39:43+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\/b-sivasubramanian-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-17-june-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-sivasubramanian-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-17-june-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"B.Sivasubramanian vs The Regional Transport Authority on 17 June, 2010","datePublished":"2010-06-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-23T17:39:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-sivasubramanian-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-17-june-2010"},"wordCount":1567,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-sivasubramanian-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-17-june-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-sivasubramanian-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-17-june-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-sivasubramanian-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-17-june-2010","name":"B.Sivasubramanian vs The Regional Transport Authority on 17 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-06-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-23T17:39:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-sivasubramanian-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-17-june-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-sivasubramanian-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-17-june-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-sivasubramanian-vs-the-regional-transport-authority-on-17-june-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"B.Sivasubramanian vs The Regional Transport Authority on 17 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\/5698","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=5698"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5698\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5698"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5698"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5698"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}