IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 31028 of 2009(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.N.RAMACHANDRAN, KAMMANGATTU HOUSE, PERAMANGALAM, THRISSUR. BY ADV. MR.I.DINESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEDER MR K.S.MOHAMMED HASHIM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 31028 of 2009(W) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 7.3.2009. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING DATED 26.10.2007. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION MEMORANDUM IN MVARP NO. 168/2009 DATED 29.4.2008. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN MVARP NO. 168/2009 DATED 26.8.2008. EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 22.7.2009. // TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE rhs S. SIRI JAGAN, J ............................................... W.P(C) No. 31028 of 2009 ................................................. Dated this the 25th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is that Ext.P4 order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam though passed as early as on 26.8.2008 has not been complied with by the 1st respondent. The directions in Ext.P4 judgment of the Tribunal is as follows: “In the result, this revision petition is allowed and setting aside the impugned order, the 1st respondent is directed to grant the conversion as prayed for, if actually the vehicle offered by the petitioner is fit for such higher class of service.” 2. By Ext.P5, the RTA has passed the following order dated 22.7.2009: “(1) Perused the Judgment in MVARP No. 168/2008 dated 26.8.2008 of Hon. STAT of Kerala. (2) Heard and Reconsidered. The Hon. STAT directed to grant the conversion of LSOS of LSFP if the vehicle is fit for service as the higher class. The report of the MVI in this regard is not specific and suppressing the facts. Hence adjourned with direction to Secretary to inspect the vehicle and report specifically whether the stage carriage is fit for service as LSFP and place before the next RTA.” 3. The contention of the petitioner is that there is a specific direction to grant the conversion as prayed for and therefore the W.P(C) No. 31028 of 2009 -2- 1st respondent cannot now conduct another enquiry through the Secretary, who is not even technically qualified to decide whether the stage carriage is fit for operating service, especially when the concerned Motor vehicle inspector has already inspected the vehicle and found the same to be fit. 4. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 5. The learned Government Pleader would submit that the petitioner has now produced another vehicle. Whatever that be the RTA has to pass an order in compliance of Ext.P4 finally. Ext.P5 is certainly not an order in compliance of with Ext.P4. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to pass orders as directed in Ext.P4 judgment of the Tribunal, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs