IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 9TH JANUARY 2009 / 19TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 820 of 2009() ----------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- A.A.JOHAR, S/O.ANTO, AYANIKKAL HOUSE, MARATHAKARA , OLLUR, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. SMT. SUDHA DEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 820 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT Application made by the petitioner for replacement of his vehicle was rejected by the RTA as per Exhibit P1. It is stated in Exhibit P1 that initially the permit was issued to the vehicle having the seating capacity of 39, which was replaced with a vehicle having seating capacity of 36. It is stated that again petitioner seeks replacement with a vehicle having seating capacity of 28. According to R.T.A, this was not permissible in view of provisions contained in Rule 174 of the KMV Rules. 2. The said Exhibit P1 proceedings were challenged by the appellant in M.V.A A No.568/2008. The tribunal held that the request for replacement made by the petitioner was not in violation of Rule 174 referred to above. The tribunal set aside the order of the first respondent and allowed the appeal and directed reconsideration. On such reconsideration again that request has been turned down as per Exhibit P3. The reason stated in Exhibit P3 is the same as is contained W.P.(C) No. 820/ 2009 2 in Exhibit P1. 3. In my view, once the tribunal has decided the very same issue, rejecting the very same reason as per Exhibit P2 judgment, the first respondent ought have implemented the said judgment. On the other hand Exhibit P3 discloses that the reasons once rejected by the tribunal have been again relied on by the first respondent and the application of the petitioner is once again rejected. It is clearly impermissible and the attempt of the first respondent is to overreach Exhibit P2 judgment. This approach cannot be appreciated or approved. Exhibit P3 shall stand quashed. First respondent is directed to issue permit and allow the replacement sought for by the petitioner as directed in Exhibit P2 judgment referred above. The writ petition is allowed. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the first respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE scm