Petitioner challenged a notice issued by APSRTC. Court allowed the petition to the extent of setting aside the impugned notice, relying on a common order and a Supreme Court judgment, while reserving the right of the Corporation to claim after tribunal adjudication.
Impugned notice dated 30.11.2011 issued vide Proc.No.DSP/785(13)/2011-MTPL is set aside.
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.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY
Writ Petition No.34842 of 2011
Date: 6 December 2012
Between:
G. Revathi
… Petitioner
And
APSRTC, rep. by its VC & MD, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and others
… Respondents
Order:
When the writ petition is taken up, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and admitted by the learned standing counsel for the APSRTC that the subject matter of this writ petition is covered in view of the common order dated 30.11.2012 passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.18777 of 2012 and batch.
In view of the aforesaid submission, following the aforesaid order of this Court and in view of the reasons recorded therein, the impugned notice dated 30.11.2011 issued vide Proc.No.DSP/785(13)/2011-MTPL is set aside. However, it is made clear that after adjudication of
claims by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, it is open to the respondents-Corporation to take steps in accordance with law by following the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in UPSRTC v. Kulsum and
others[1] .
Writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. As a sequel, WVMP No.2502 of 2012 stands closed. No order as to costs.
R. SUBHASH REDDY, J
6 December 2012 MRR
[1] (2011) 8 SCC 1432
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned notice issued by APSRTC under Proc.No.DSP/785(13)/2011-MTPL should be set aside in light of a common order.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
UPSRTC v. Kulsum and othersRelied on¶13
UPSRTC v. Kulsum and others (2011) 8 SCC 1432 · Who else cites this
G. Revathi
APSRTC
R. Subhash Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
