Joy Thottathil, v. the Traffic Regulatory Committee
Case brief
What is this about?
In two writ petitions, the High Court observed that the Traffic Regulatory Committee had modified the impugned orders dated June 3, 2019 by a subsequent decision on June 29, 2019. The Court disposed of the petitions by merely recording the fact of this modification without entering a formal judgment on merits.
What did the court decide?
No specific writs granted as the Court disposed of the petitions by noting the modification of orders by the Committee.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2019 / 1ST SRAVANA, 1941
WP(C).No.16798 of 2019
PETITIONERS:
1 THRISSUR DISTRICT MOTOR TRANSPORT OPERATORS ASSOCIATION, UNIT OF KERALA STATE MOTOR TRANSPORT OPERATORS ASSOCIATION (REG.NO.232/93), MUNICIPAL BUS STAND BUILDING, CHALAKUDY, REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL SECRETARY LISON JOHN.
2 RANI REJU, W/O. REJU, KUTTIYIL HOUSE, WEST CHALAKUDY P.O, THRISSUR.
BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE TRAFFIC REGULATORY COMMITTEE, CHALAKUDY, REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRPERSON, MUNICIPAL BUILDING, CHALAKUDY-680307.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether writ petitions challenging Traffic Committee orders need disposal after the Committee decided to modify the orders.
Whether the court can dispose of the writ petitions by noting the modification of the impugned orders by the authority.
Whether the Traffic Regulatory Committee has discretion to revisit and modify previous traffic regulation decisions.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
THRISSUR DISTRICT MOTOR TRANSPORT OPERATORS ASSOCIATION
- petitioner
RANI REJU
- petitioner
JOY THOTTATHIL
- petitioner
SHIJI
- respondent
THE TRAFFIC REGULATORY COMMITTEE, CHALAKUDY
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court