IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2008 / 8TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 20929 of 2008(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- P.S. RAGHUDAS, PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE, KERALASSERY.P.O, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD. 3. THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, K.S.R.T.C, PALAKKAD. 4. SHAJIMOL, W/O. SYED MUHAMMED, CHENNIKKAPARA HOUSE, CHEMBUKAD, KUTHANNUR, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD. 5. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MANOJKUMAR ADV. SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN, SC, K.S.R.T.C. - R3 SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR - R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).20929/2008-N APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE AGENDA IN ITEM NO.9 DATED 23/01/2008. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE AGENDA IN ITEM NO.4 DATED 04/02/2008. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16/04/2008 IN MVAA. NO.222/2008 EXT.P4: COPY OF THE DRAFT SCHEME DATED 09/05/2007. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R4(a): COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT GRANTING REGULAR PERMIT IN FAVOUR OF THIS RESPONDENT DATED 07/03/2008. EXT.R4(b): COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 23/01/2008. // TRUE COPY // Rs/ ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) 20929 of 2008 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated: JULY 30, 2008 JUDGMENT Ext.P3 is under challenge. 2. By Ext.P1 the 4th respondent was granted a regular permit subject to settlement of timings with a condition that she should undertake for the revocation of the permit earlier granted. This condition was challenged by the 4th respondent in MVAA 222/2008 filed before the STAT. By Ext.P3 judgment, the STAT allowed the appeal and directed the 2nd respondent to issue the permit provided the current records are made available within the statutory period. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since Ext.P1 grant itself directed that once undertaking is furnished, the matter shall be placed before the RTA, the Tribunal ought to have directed reconsideration of the matter by the RTA itself and ought not have directed grant of permit by the Secretary. According to him, the Tribunal WP(C) 20929/08 2 should not have remitted the matter to the Secretary as it is done in Ext.P3. 4. I am not in a position to agree with the counsel. True, in Ext.P1, the condition imposed was that the 4th respondent should agree for the revocation of the earlier permit and it is consequent to the imposition of such a condition that the Secretary was directed to obtain the willingness of the 4th respondent and place the matter before the RTA. Once the condition for the revocation of the permit granted earlier has been deleted by the STAT in its judgment, there is absolutely no necessity to place the matter again before the RTA. Once the grant is upheld by the STAT, what remains to be done is production of current records and settlement of timings. This necessarily has to be done by the Secretary and not the RTA. Therefore, I see nothing irregular in Ext.P3. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE mt/-