IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2009 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 8031 of 2009(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- BABU THOMAS, VELLOKKUNNEL, NADACKAL, ERATTUPETTA. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.8031 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 31st day of March, 2009. JUDGMENT Complaint in this writ petition is the alleged non- implementation of Ext.P2 judgment of the STAT. 2. Facts of the case are that by Ext.P1, the application for regular permit was rejected by the first respondent. That was challenged before the Tribunal in MVAA.No.346/07. By Ext.P2 judgment rendered on 16th August, 2007 the tribunal allowed the appeal and directed that regular permit be granted to the petitioner as applied for by him. Petitioner submits that records including the judgment in the appeal were sent by the Tribunal to the first respondent on 30.9.2007. However the matter was not placed before the RTA. In view of this petitioner produced a certificate copy of the judgment on 30.12.2008. Accordingly the matter came to be considered by the first respondent on 22.1.2009. In the meanwhile draft /2/ notification dated 15.9.2008 was issued. Taking into account the view that the route in question is an objectionable one in view of the draft notification referred to above, permit was again rejected by Ext.P3 proceedings of the first respondent. It is in these circumstances the writ petition has been filed. 3. I my view, the first respondent misdirected itself in considering the issue. Once the STAT hass directed grant of permit, all that remains to be done is the ministerial act of granting permit. In the meanwhile if the route has become objectionable, the remedy available is to initiate proceedings under Section 103 read with Rule 242 of the KMV Rules in stead of rejecting to grant the permit and thus violate the Tribunal judgment. Therefore, I set aside Ext.P3 and direct that the permit as ordered on Ext.P2 judgment shall be granted to the petitioner, however without prejudice to the right of the authorities to take action I the manner as mentioned above. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. vi (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE /2/ vi/ /2/