IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2009 / 10TH MAGHA 1930 WA.No. 966 of 2007(B) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.8637/2007 DATED 14/3/2007 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONERS IN WP(C): ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. K.RADHAKRISHNA RAI, S/O.PRABHAKAR RAI, AGED 42 YEARS, “DURA SADAN”, P.O.CHARLA, MANJESWARAM, KASARGODE DISTRICT. 2. JAWAHAR NAZARATH, S/O.REYMOND NAZARATH, AGED 47 YEARS, 3/76, KTL COMPOUND, NEAR KRISHNA TALKIES, KASARGODE. 3. MALINGA PATALI, THIMMAPPA PATALI, AGED 65 YEARS, GUDDE TEMPLE ROAD, P.O.KUDULU, KASARGOD DISTRICT. 4. LOKANATHAN, S/O.K.VENKATARAMAN, AGED 55 YEARS, SADH MANSION, NEAR KANTHERI DHOOMAVATHI TEMPLE, SURATKAL, MANGALORE, KARNATAKA. BY ADV. MR.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN WP(C): ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SHRI.HARISH KUMAR SHETTY, LOKAYA RAI COMPOUND, KARAMBETTU, JAPPINAMOGARU, MANGALORE. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA R3 BY ADV. MR.INEES THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss J.B.KOSHY, Ag.C.J. & V.GIRI, J. -------------------------------------- W.A.No.966 of 2007 ------------------------------------- Dated 30th January, 2009 JUDGMENT Koshy, Ag.C.J . Appellants/petitioners are inter-state stage carriage operators in the route Mangalore – Kasaragode. Earlier the third respondent had permit only up to Kumbala. Later, by Ext.P5, variation of conditions of permit was granted by Karnataka authority. In Ext.P9 dated 25.7.2002 it was held that the portion of the route from Kumbala to Kasaragode and back will be operative after obtaining counter signature from the STA, Kerala. Ext.P9 is not challenged in any of the proceedings. Even though his request for extension was not granted earlier and that was subject matter of various proceedings, it was finally settled in Ex.P14 judgment of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. Ext.P14 is an appeal filed under section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the proceedings of the first respondent rejecting the application for counter signature of renewal of regular permit on the route Nethilpadau – Mangalore bus stand and Mangalore bus stand - Kasaragode bus stand for a period of five years till 3.8.2007 on double point tax basis. The Tribunal also noticed that the third respondent has got an order of extension up to W.A.966/2007 2 Kasaragode by order dated 26.9.1997 subject to counter signature. By the time, a writ petition was filed by a rival operator and a status quo order was obtained. But, later it was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 29.10.2003. The Tribunal also stated that the third respondent had permit on Nethipadau – Kumbala inter state route. It was extended up to Kasaragod and counter signature was granted up to 4.8.2002. But, because of the stay obtained in the writ petition, he was not able to operate. In the meantime, STA Karnataka had renewed the permit. The contention of the state authority that renewal of counter signature has to be treated as a fresh grant is not accepted. It was also held that as per the interstate agreement it was the Karnataka Authority to grant or renew permit. The Kerala authority has only to accord counter signature. Kerala authority need only look into whether counter signature can be granted or not. Though in the appeal submission made was that the appellant sought only renewal of permit up to Kasaragode and it was not a fresh permit, the same cannot stand in the way of extension up to Kasaragode in view of Ext.P9 order of the STA Bangalore and the preface of Ext.P14 judgment. Ext.P14 judgment was ordered to be implemented by this court by judgment in W.P(C).No.9394/2006. Ext.P14 is not challenged in this writ petition. On the basis of Exts.P14, Exts.P16 and P17 were granted . As rightly submitted by W.A.966/2007 3 the appellants, that is only a Ministerial act in implementation of Ext.P16 and revision is not maintainable. Learned single Judge directed to file a revision. So long as Ext.P14 is not challenged, we are of the view that no interference is required in Exts.P16 and P17. This is apart from the contention raised by the respondent that a rival operator cannot file writ petition against grant of permit. We dismiss this writ appeal with costs. J.B.KOSHY ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE V.GIRI JUDGE tks