IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2010 / 12TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 16250 of 2010(E) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- P.RAMACHANDRA MENON, SRUTHILAYAM, ABHINAV NAGAR, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD. 2. THE SECRETARY, R.T.A., PALAKKAD. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO.16250 OF 2010 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 2nd DAY OF JUNE, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a Stage Carriage operator conducting services on the route Cheppadam - Varani with Stage Carriage bearing registration No. KL-9/U 757. He preferred an application for the variation of his route by extending the same from Cheppadam to Pallassanakkavu. The application was initially considered by the RTA, Palakkad and rejected. The petitioner challenged the order of rejection before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (STAT). The matter was remanded with a direction to the petitioner to submit a modified proposal. Accordingly, a modified proposal was submitted but, the application was again rejected. The petitioner again challenged the rejection of his application before the STAT. The Tribunal examined the entire issue, found that there were no grounds to reject the application of the petitioner and therefore directed the RTA, Palakkad to grant variation, as applied for. 2. According to the petitioner, the judgment of the STAT has Wpc 16250/2010 2 become final. However, when the matter was considered again by the RTA, Palakkad, some of the objectors stated that an appeal was pending against the said judgment before this court. On the basis of the said submission, the RTA, Palakkad adjourned the matter. This writ petition is filed challenging the said action. 3. According to the counsel for the petitioner, no appeal is pending against the judgment of the STAT and the same has become final. Even if an appeal were pending, that is no ground to defer a decision on his application for the reason that no order of stay of the direction of the STAT has been produced by anyone. It is pointed out that if an appeal is actually pending, the only consequence would be that, any decision to be taken on the variation application would have to abide by the result of such appeal. I have heard Government Pleader, Mr. K.C.Santhosh Kumar, who appears for the respondents also. 4. In view of the fact that there is no material produced to show that any appeal is pending against Ext.P1 judgment, there is no justification for the conclusion that an appeal is pending against the same. Even if an appeal is pending, there is absolutely no material to Wpc 16250/2010 3 show that any stay of the direction contained in Ext.P1 has been granted by any superior authority. Therefore, the RTA, Palakkad erred in postponing the decision on the variation application submitted by the petitioner. As rightly pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner, the decision to be taken on the application for variation submitted by the petitioner would have to abide by the final judgment of this court in any appeal that may be pending against Ext.P1 judgment. 5. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider the application for variation submitted by the petitioner in accordance with the directions contained in Ext.P1 judgment and to pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE lgk