IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 26TH JUNE 2008 / 5TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 18549 of 2008(G) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- SMT.K.GEETHA, W/O.SUBRAMANIAN, KALLINGAVALAPPIL HOUSE, VENGINIKKARA, EDAPPAL. BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.V.MANOJKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.18549/2008 G APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT DTD. 1/10/2004. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD. 16/09/2004. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR VARIATION DTD. 2/11/2006. EXT.P4: COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DTD. 25/04/2007. EXT.P5: EXTRACT OF THE REPORT DTD. 6/10/07. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD. 20/11/2007. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE APPEAL DTD. 2/1/2008. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN MVAA NO.9/08 DTD. 25/2/2008. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD. 22/05/2008. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP9C) NO.25264/2004 DTD. 29/09/2004. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP9C) NO.11845/2008 DTD. 27/05/2008. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) 18549 of 2008 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated: JUNE 26, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner submits that he is operating on the route Ponnani - Pattambi on the strength of Ext.P1 regular permit valid till 30.9.2009. It is submitted that by filing Ext.P3, petitioner sought extension of the route and also curtailment of the route. That was considered by the RTA and by Ext.P4 the RTA adjourned the same for obtaining specific report regarding the request, on the ground that the curtailment will adversely affect the travelling public. 2. Accordingly an enquiry was conducted and Ext.P5 report was submitted, suggesting that the variation sought for by the petitioner will be beneficial to the travelling public. The matter was considered again by the RTA and by EXt.P6 the RTA rejected the request on the ground that no new circumstances under Rule 145(6)(i)(ii) of the KMV Rules, 1989 have arisen to grant the proposed variation and that the proposed timing schedule will change the entire set of timings. 3. Against Ext.P6, petitioner filed Ext.P7 appeal and that WP(C) 18549/08 2 was disposed of by the Tribunal by Ext.P8 judgment. In Ext.P8 the Tribunal held that the petitioner is entitled to have the variation sought for. On this basis, the Tribunal set aside Ext.P6 and directed the RTA to grant the variation sought for by the petitioner subject to settlement of timings. Accordingly, the matter was again considered by the RTA and by Ext.P9 proceedings the matter was again adjourned to verify the correctness of the statement that the varied route lies in the notified route Kottayam - Kozhikode and a report was called for from the Secretary. It is challenging Ext.P9 that this writ petitin was filed. 4. From the facts as stated above, it can be seen that after a long battle, the petitioner succeeded before the Tribunal in getting Ext.P8 whereby the Tribunal set aside the proceedings of the RTA and directed that the petitioner be granted the variation sought for subject to settlement of timings. Once the Tribunal has issued a positive direction in the manner indicated in Ext.P8, the RTA is only expected to carry out the direction of the Tribunal rather than sitting in appeal over the matter. Instead of implementing the STAT's judgment, the RTA has started a fresh enquiry into the request made by WP(C) 18549/08 3 the petitioner, which, to say the least, was quite unwarranted. Accordingly Ext.P9 will stand set aside. 5. In this context it also needs to be clarified that in case anybody is aggrieved by Ext.P8, it is for that person to pursue the matter by taking recourse to the remedies that are available. It is not for the RTA to defeat the orders passed by the STAT in the manner it has done. 6. Therefore the writ petition will stand disposed of directing that the RTA shall grant the variation sought for by the petitioner in pursuance to Ext.P8 and the Secretary shall settle the timings as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate, within eight weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. I clarify that the implementation of Ext.P8 will be subject to the outcome of any proceedings which may be instituted against Ext.P8 judgment of the STAT. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE mt/-