IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2008 / 28TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 30017 of 2008(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.K.PURUSHOTHAMAN, CHALIL HOUSE, THIRUNALLOOR P.O., CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ALAPPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY. BY GP SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).30017/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 20th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner filed an application for a regular permit to operate on the route Cherthala - Aroor. The application was originally rejected by the RTA on the ground that the route objectionably overlaps 0.3 kms from Iron Bridge to Court Junction and therefore, violates Thiruvananthapuram - Palakkad supplementation scheme. On appeal, the Tribunal, as per Ext.P1 judgment, found that since the area which seems to overlap is only 0.3 kms, considering the route length, it seems to be an intersection and not an overlapping of the route as such. Tribunal, therefore, remanded the matter to the RTA for fresh consideration in the light of the observations contained in the judgment. 2. RTA, as it seems from Ext.P2, considered the petitioner's application. But instead of proceeding to dispose of the same on merits, it has sought for W.P.(C).30017/2008 2 clarification from the Advocate General, to see whether the observations contained in a judgment of the Karnataka High Court is applicable or not. 3. RTA is bound by the decision taken by the STAT. It cannot therefore, defer consideration seeking clarification as sought for. STAT has only directed the RTA to take a decision, as the appellate authority found that the dictum laid down by the Karnataka High Court is applicable. RTA cannot plea ignorance of the same as such. 4. In the result, writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to pass orders pursuant to Ext.P1 without further delay, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs