IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2008 / 14TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 29431 of 2008(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY LAW OFFICER, SRI. RANJIT JOSEPH. BY ADV. SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN, SC, K.S.R.T.C. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM. 3. SMT.V.P. SUKUMARI, VALIYAPARAMBIL, NADAKKAVU.P.O, ERNAKULAM. 4. SMT. MARIAMMA THOMAS, KUMBALAMTHANATHU HOUSE, AYARKUNNAM, KOTTAYAM. 5. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. BY GP SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).29431/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 6th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT Kerala State Road Transport Corporation challenges Exts.P5 and P6 judgments of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. It is contended that the STAT has committed an error in directing regular permits to be granted in relation to the rules which overlap a notified route. It is further contended that KSRTC was not a party in the proceedings before the STAT, and this therefore, vitiates the order passed by the STAT. 2. I would have normally considered this contention but for the fact that subsequent to Exts.P5 and P6, respondents 3 and 4 had approached this Court in Writ Petition No.23207/2008 for a direction to the Regional Transport Authority to implement the said judgments. KSRTC was not a party in the said writ petition also. But this Court had issued a direction vide Ext.P8, to the Regional Transport Authority to implement W.P.(C).29431/2008 2 Exts.P5 and P6 which were marked as Exts.P4 and P4(a) in Ext.P8 writ petition. In circumstances where there is a direction of this Court to the Regional Transport Authority to implement Exts.P5 and P6 judgments, I am not in a position to consider the challenge against the same judgments in this writ petition. I therefore, refrain from considering the contention of the petitioner as against Exts.P5 and P6 judgments on merits, in this writ petition. They are left open. It is open to the petitioner to challenge the said judgment, provided it is in a position to do so, after prosecution of appropriate steps/appeal in relation to Ext.P8 judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs