IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 14TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 25TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 34166 of 2007(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- A.J.JOHN, ALUMKAL HOUSE, ANICKAL EAST P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOTTAYAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. M.P. SREEKRISHNAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC. 34166/2007. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT. P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE RTA, KOTTAYAM DATED 21.12.2006. EXT. P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.3.2007 IN MVAA NO.160/2007. EXT. P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.6.2007 IN WPC. NO.17792/2007. EXT. P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE RTA, KOTTAYAM DATED 7.8.2007. EXT. P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.5.2007 IN WPC. NO.16243 OF 2007. K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No.34166 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is a stage carriage operator. He applied for the grant of a permit, which was rejected vide Ext.P1. Ext.P1 came to be reversed by the STAT vide Ext.P2. According to the petitioner, it had attained finality. Petitioner came to be served with Ext.P4 passed by the RTA adjourning the case indefinitely for filing appeal against the judgment of the STAT. Petitioner challenges Ext.P4 and also seeks a direction to comply with Ext.P2 judgment. 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.P.Deepak and the learned Government Pleader. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that once the appellate authority has pronounced Ext.P2 order, the RTA is bound to implement it. He also relied on Ext.P5 judgment and submits that the same course may be adopted in this case. Learned Government Pleader does not seriously oppose this prayer. 4. I think that the petitioner is right in asking this court to follow the course adopted in Ext.P5 judgment. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. There will be a direction to the first respondent to WPC. 34166/2007. 2 implement Ext.P2 order passed by the STAT within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. However, I make it clear that if the Government initiates any proceedings against Ext.P2, the grant of permit pursuant to Ext.P2 will be subject to any interim order or final order that may be passed in such proceedings. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb