IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2009 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 9235 of 2009(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A.J.JOHN, ALUMKAL HOUSE, ANICKAD EAST P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KANNUR,REP.BY ITS SECRETARY,KANNUR. MR.P.N.SANTHOSH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.9235 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 23rd day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T Ext.P1 is the proceedings of the Secretary, RTA, Ernakulam seeking prior concurrence of the sister authority, the respondent herein, for renewal of the petitioner's regular permit, which was rejected by Ext.P2. Ext.P2 was challenged before the Tribunal in MVARP No.578/2007. The Tribunal disposed of the revision by Ext.P3 order directing the respondent to grant prior concurrence for renewal of the petitioner's permit without prejudice to the right of the primary authority to decide on the nature of service, and after considering the objection raised by the KSRTC regarding overlapping in the notified route. Despite the positive direction to grant prior concurrence, the respondent by Ext.P4 adjourned the proceedings calling for certain information from the KSRTC. It is aggrieved by Ext.P4, the writ petition has been filed. 2. As already noticed, on rejection of prior concurrence, the petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing MVARP No.578/2007. The Tribunal disposed of the revision by Ext.P3 order with a positive WP(C) No.9235/2009 -2- direction to grant prior concurrence, reserving freedom to the primary authority to decide on the nature of service and objection of the KSRTC regarding the alleged overlapping. Once such a positive direction is issued by the Tribunal, the duty of the respondent is only to comply with such directions and not to tinker with such direction. Ext.P4 does not reveal a proper implementation of Ext.P3. Therefore, Ext.P4 will stand set aside. It is directed that the respondent shall grant prior concurrence to the petitioner as directed in Ext.P3. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within eight weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg