This court dismissed a writ petition as infructuous because the petitioner alleged the respondent's transport permit had expired, rendering the challenge without substance.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 4820 of 2009
Bijay Kumar Jaiswal … … Petitioner
Versus
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
--For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajiv Anand, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. L. C. N. Shahdeo, G. P. - VI ---
05/08.08.2019 Defects as pointed out by the office are ignored.
Heard Mr. Rajiv Anand, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. L. C. N. Shahdeo, learned G. P. – VI.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 22.05.2009 passed in Transport Appeal No. 02 of 2008 by the Presiding Officer, State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Jharkhand, Ranchi by which the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed.
The petitioner appears to be aggrieved with respect to the permit granted in favour of the respondent no. 3 on 15.01.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the validity of the permit was for a period of five years which has already expired in the year 2013 and, therefore, on such score this writ application has become infructuous.
In view of the aforesaid submission, this writ application is dismissed as being infructuous.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
Umesh/-
Bijay Kumar Jaiswal
State of Jharkhand through State Transport Authority, Jharkhand, Ranchi
Chairman, State Transport Authority, Ranchi
Ravindra Nath Samanto
Rongon Mukhopadhyay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
