IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JANUARY 2008 / 3RD MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 35440 of 2007(R) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------------- LEELAKUJUKUNJU, BALIAPADATH HOUSE, THAIKKATTUKARA, ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK RESPONDENT: ---------------------- THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOTTAYAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.35440/2007 R APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE RTA, KOTTAYAM DTD. 30/05/2006. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 1/09/2006 IN MVAA NO.335/2006. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 11/1/2007 IN WPC.NO.25435/2006. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 09/04/2007 IN MVAA.NO. 335/2006. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE RTA, KOTTAYAM DTD. 7/08/2007. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 29/05/2007 IN WPC.NO. 16243 OF 2007. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 35440 of 2007 ------------------------------------- Dated: January 23, 2008 JUDGMENT By Ext.P1 the respondent had rejected the application of the petitioner for a fast passenger permit. In the appeal that was filed by the petitioner against Ext.P2 order, the Tribunal directed to grant the permit as ordinary service. Petitioner challenged Ex.P2 in so far as the permit was granted as an ordinary service and WP(C) 25435/2008 was disposed of by Ext.P3 judgment remanding the matter to the STAT directing it to consider the request of the petitioner to grant a fast passenger permit. 2. Accordingly the matter was reconsidered by the STAT and by Ext.P4 judgment the STAT allowed the appeal and ordered grant of fast passenger permit to the petitioner subject to settlement of timing. When the matter reached the RTA, the RTA by Ext.P5 adjourned the proceedings for filing appeal and authorised the Secretary to obtain permission from the Government. It is challenging Ext.P5 that this writ petition has been filed. WP(C) 35440/07 Page numbers 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the RTA is not an aggrieved party and the RTA could not sit in judgment over Ext.P4 judgment of the STAT. Counsel would also submit that the RTA, being the primary authority, is bound by the decision of the STAT and hence should be directed to implement the same forthwith. 3. I agree with the counsel for the petitioner that the RTA cannot be an aggrieved person to seek reversal of the judgment of the STAT. Similar view has been taken by this court in Ext.P6 judgment produced with the writ petition. Therefore, there will be a direction to the respondent to implement Ext.P4 judgment of the STAT as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. I clarify that in case the Government initiates any proceeding against Ext.P5 judgment of the STAT, the implementation of Ext.P5 by the respondent shall be subject to the outcome of such proceedings. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE WP(C) 35440/07 Page numbers mt/-