IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 5958 of 2009(V) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RAKESH CHANDRA K, S/O. NARAYANAN, KUNNATHODI HOUSE, KOTTUPATTA, NARUKARA P.O., MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.KRISHNAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS (G) DEPARTMENT GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE MANJERI MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MANJERI. 4. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD ROADS, SUB DIVISION, MENAJERI, MALAPPURAM DIST. 5. V.P. HYDERALI, VALAPRAYIL HOUSE, KOTTUPATTA NARUKARA P.O., MANJERI. BY GOVT. PLEADER SR. P.N. SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ----------------------- W.P.(C).No. 5958 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 25th day of February, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner's grievance is basically against Ext.P3, a order passed by the first respondent, according permission for the construction of a temporary waiting shed subject to the conditions mentioned therein. Petitioner submits that a waiting shed in the nature of one contemplated in Ext.P3 can be constructed only with the approval of the RTA in terms of the provisions contained Rule 206 of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules. Although it is true that RTA has to decide on such issues, however having regard to the facts of this case, I see no reason to interfere with the setting up of the waiting shed in pursuance to Ext.P3. If the petitioner or anybody else is aggrieved, it is up to them to approach the appropriate authorities including the RTA, in which case the authority shall pass orders. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) vi JUDGE