IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 21ST AUGUST 2008 / 30TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 13630 of 2008(V) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ V.REGHUNATHAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, AGED 48 YEARS VAZHAPPALLIL HOUSE, MADATHILKARAZHMA, OACHIRA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.SABU S.KALLARAMOOLA RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. TKHE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, R.T.A., KOLLAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.V.MANOJ KUMAR - R2 ADV. SRI.PEEYUS A. KOTTAM FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.13631/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE SAID REGULAR PERMIT NO.P.ST.C/4/01/Q/07 DT. 6.1.07. EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH SHOWING EXISTING ROUTE SKETCH SHOWING THE EXISTING ROUTE AND THE PROPOSED EXTENSION. EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 4.12.07 IN M.V.A.A. NO. 348/07. EXT.P4:- COPY OF THE DECISION DT. 25.2.2008 OF THE IST RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE tss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) 13630 of 2008 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated: AUGUST 21, 2008 JUDGMENT By Ext.P1, an application was made by the petitioner for variation of the permit. That having been rejected, an appeal (MVAA 348/2007) was filed by the petitioner. The appeal was disposed of by the Tribunal by Ext.P3 judgment, directing the 1st respondent to grant the variation sought for by the petitioner, thereby extend the service upto Kundara - Mukkada. The matter went back to the RTA which, by Ext.P4 proceedings, directed the Secretary to ascertain the possibility of filing an appeal before the High Court. It is challenging Ext.P4, this writ petition has been filed. 2. There is absolutely no justification for the stand the RTA has taken in Ext.P4. It has been repeatedly held that once the STAT has passed a judgment in the nature of Ext.P3, incorporating positive directions, the duty of the RTA is only to faithfully carry out the same and not to seek WP(C) 13630/08 2 to upset the directions issued. In Ext.P4, evidently the endeavour was to overreach the judgment and it cannot be allowed. 3. Ext.P4 will therefore stand quashed and the RTA is directed to implement Ext.P3, as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate within four weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. However, it is clarified that in case if the terms of Ext.P3 judgment are modified by any manner known to law, the implementation of Ext.P3 judgment shall be subject to such orders. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-