UNION OF INDIA Vs. N KRISHNASAMY CHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN view of the hearing/disposal of the Writ Appeal and the Writ Petition and the observations in this judgment, technically, though no relief could be granted in favour of the proposed-impleading respondents, we allow both the implead-petitions, i.e. in W.A.M.P.No.186 of 2007 in Writ Appeal No.2032 of 2002 and W.P.M.P.No.721 of 2008 in Writ Petition No.32985 of 2002, and implead K.Dhandapani as second respondent in the Writ Appeal and fourth respondent in the Writ Petition.

(2.) AS common question of law is involved and as the contesting respondent(s) is common, both the Writ Appeal and the Writ Petition were heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the first respondent-N.Krishnasamy Chetty, while accepting the proposition of law as was submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the State Transport Authority, also agrees that the only one permit should have been granted pursuant to the agreement reached between the State of Tamil Nadu and the Union Territory of Pondicherry.