IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 31ST JULY 2008 / 9TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 18414 of 2008(P) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- P.V.VIJAYAKUMAR, PUTHENVILA VEEDU, EDAVATTOM, CHANDANATHOPE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK RESPONDENT: ------------------------- THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOLLAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.V.MANOJKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/07/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.18414/2008 P APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE RTA, KOLLAM DTD. 24/04/2007. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 5/11/2007 IN MVAA NO.439/2007. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE RTA, KOLLAM DTD. 29/04/2008. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) 18414 of 2008 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated: JULY 31, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner submits that an application was made by him to the RTA for a regular permit and that was rejected by EXt.P1 proceedings. Against Ext.P1, petitioner filed MVAA No.439/2007 before the Tribunal and by Ext.P2 judgment the Tribunal set aside Ext.P1 and directed the RTA to grant the regular permit applied for by the petitioner, subject to settlement of timings. However, when the matter came back to the RTA, by Ext.P3 proceedings, the RTA deferred the matter to ascertain the possibility of obtaining a modified application avoiding the objectionable overlapping. It is aggrieved by Ext.P3, this writ petition is filed. 2. As is evident from Ext.P2, the Tribunal has directed grant of permit as applied for by the petitioner. Once the Appellate Authority has issued a direction as WP(C) 18414/08 2 above, the duty of the RTA is only to faithfully implement the same and not to sit in appeal over the same or to look for ways and means to avoid implementation of the appellate order. In this case, the RTA has failed to discharge its duty and, on the other hand, passed Ext.P3, which only reflects its attempt to over-reach the Appellate order. This attitude of the RTA cannot be upheld. 3. Therefore, Ext.P3 will stand quashed and the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent that the permit as applied for by the petitioner and as directed in Ext.P2 judgment shall be granted, subject to settlement of timings. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate, within six weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE mt/-