IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2008 / 3RD ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 14811 of 2008(L) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------------- E.RATHNA, W/O.SADANANDAN, ASARIKANDIYIL, CHELAVOOR, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOZHIKODE. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.V. MANOJKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/06/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.14811/2008 L APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DTD.2/08/2007. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN M.V.A.A.NO.548/2007 DTD. 22/09/2007. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DTD.11/03/2008. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE TEMPORARY PERMIT APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT DTD. 31/01/2008. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) 14811 of 2008 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated: JUNE 24, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner submits that in the route Kozhikode - Muzhapalam, a stage carriage bearing No.KL-11/A-8514 was operating on regular permit. On its discontinuation, petitioner applied for a temporary permit and on the strength of the temporary permit so granted, petitioner was operating on the aforesaid route. 2. Meanwhile petitioner applied for regular permit and that was rejected by the RTA by Ext.P1 order stating that the application is for a new permit and that the route overlaps the scheme notified by the notification dated 9.5.2007. Petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the STAT by filing MVAA 548/2007 and the appeal was disposed of by Ext.P2 judgment setting aside Ext.P1 order and directing the 1st respondent herein to grant the regular permit applied for in respect of the said service if the application is otherwise in order. It is seen that in pursuance to Ext.P2, the matter was boarded for the WP(C) 14811/2008 2 consideration of RTA and on 11.3.2008 the RTA adjourned the matter to ascertain whether the renewal application filed by the original operator was actually pending and also to verify the existence of the vehicle KL-11/A-8514. It is submitted that thereafter the matter was not taken up for consideration, while, at the same time, orders are also not passed on the temporary permit applied for by the petitioner. It is in these circumstances that the writ petition has been filed. 3. As can be seen from Ext.P1, the RTA treated the petitioner's application as one for a fresh permit. When that application was rejected, petitioner carried the matter in appeal and the Tribunal directed that the petitioner be granted regular permit applied for by him, if the application is otherwise in order. The 1st respondent has no case that there was any defect in the application made by the petitioner. If that be so, in pursuance to Ext.P2, the 1st respondent should have only faithfully carried out what the STAT has directed. This requires the 1st respondent to grant the permit as directed by the STAT instead of further probing into the matter as it has done in Ext.P3. WP(C) 14811/2008 3 4. It is settled law that once the STAT has directed grant of the permit, what remains to be done by the RTA is only the ministerial act of granting the permit. In view of the position as above, Ext.P3 cannot be sustained and it is quashed. The 1st respondent shall implement Ext.P2 judgment in its letter and spirit as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate, within two months of production of a copy of this judgment. 5. In the meantime, orders shall be passed on Ext.P4 application for temporary permit submitted by the petitioner. This shall be done by the 2nd respondent within two weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. 6. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE mt/-