IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 24250 of 2008(J) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------------- T.K.RAGHAVAN, SOUPARNIKA, O.P. MAMBARAM, THALASSERY. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KANNUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KANNUR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.R. SREELATHA FOR R1 & R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.24250/2008 J APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 26/09/2007 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 26/03/2008 IN M.V.A.A. NO.635/2007 PASSED BY THE S.T.A.T. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C1/58044/07 DTD. 29/05/2008 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.24250 of 2008 ------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of November, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P3 proceedings of the Regional Transport Authority, on the premise that the Regional Transport Authority seems to have acted illegally de hors the direction given by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in Ext.P2 judgment. 2. The petitioner is a stage carriage operator, operating on the route Mambram – Thalassery. An application for variation of the permit has been rejected under Ext.P2. But, in appeal, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal found that the reasons that found favour with the Regional Transport Authority are not sustainable and the Regional Transport Authority was directed to grant the variation sought for, subject to settlement of timings. The Regional Transport Authority considered Ext.P2 judgment of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and then passed the following order: “Heard. Perused the judgment. The additional trip proposed includes Thalassery Meethalapeedika lies in the notified route W.P.(C).NO.24250/08 :: 2 :: Kozhikode-Kasaragod Scheme. Hence adjourned with direction to the applicant to propose the variation avoiding the additional trip from Thalasery to Mambaram and without change in the halting place.” The same is under challenge in this writ petition. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent. It is not open to the Regional Transport Authority to direct the applicant to propose the variation avoiding the additional trip. The same does not form part of the direction given by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The Regional Transport Authority is to implement the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. In the result, the writ petition is allowed, setting aside Ext.P3 and directing the 1st respondent to pass orders, on the basis of Ext.P2. But, it is made clear that this direction will be operative till such time as Ext.P2 remains in force. This direction will not stand in the way of the State challenging Ext.P2, if otherwise advised. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy//