P.D.Chacku v. R.T.A. and Others
Case brief
What is this about?
Petitioner's counsel argued that the writ petition became infructuous due to an existing interim order. The court accepted this submission and closed the petition without merits.
What did the court decide?
Writ petition closed as infructuous.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI
MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE 2014/12TH JYAISHTA, 1936
WP(C).No. 8673 of 2011 (H)
PETITIONER:
P.D.CHACKU, S/O.DEVASSY, AGED 81, PAREKKATTIL HOUSE, MATTOOR, MAROTTICHODU, KALADY, P.O, ERNAKULAM - 683 574.
BY ADVS.SRI.SHERRY J. THOMAS,
SRI.M.MANOJKUMAR (SHANTHIGIRI), SMT.RAGAM.S.MOHAN.
RESPONDENTS:
1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, S.R.T.O , ALUVA- 683 101, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, ERNAKULAM 682 030.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
P.D.Chacku
- respondent
Regional Transport Authority, S.R.T.O, Aluva
- respondent
Regional Transport Officer, Ernakulam
- respondent
Sasikumar
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court