IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2010 / 11TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 15220 of 2010(B) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- MADHU R.MENON, RAMGI GROUP, KIZHAKKUMPATTUKARA, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR. 2. THE SECRETARY, R.T.A, THRISSUR. R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.15220 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a stage carriage operator conducting services on the route Chottupara-Ayyanthole-Medical College with stage carriage vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL- 8/AD 7002. He had preferred an application for variation of his permit by extending the route from Athani to Medical College. The application was rejected by the Regional Transport Authority (RTA), Thrissur. The petitioner challenged the rejection of his application before the State Transport Appellate Authority (STAT). After hearing all the parties, the STAT allowed the appeal in the following words: “In the result, this appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside, thereby directing the first respondent to grant the variation of permit as sought for by the appellant, subject to settlement of timings.” 2. Pursuant to the above direction, the Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur considered the matter again, but, rejected the application of the petitioner. The wpc No.15220/2010 2 petitioner has challenged the said rejection in this Writ Petition. 3. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the first respondent ought to have complied with the positive direction that was issued by the STAT and that it had no jurisdiction to reject the request of the petitioner. The counsel also relies on the judgment of this Court, Ext.P4 to submit that the RTA went wrong in not complying with the directions of the STAT. I have heard the learned Senior Government Pleader Mr.K.C.Santhosh Kumar also. 4. In view of the positive direction issued by the STAT, as evidenced by Ext.P2, the first respondent had no authority to reject the variation of permit that was sought for. In view of the above, Ext.P3 is unsustainable and is accordingly set aside. 5. This Writ Petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider the application for variation submitted by the petitioner and to grant the same in compliance with the directions in Ext.P2 judgment. wpc No.15220/2010 3 Orders as indicated above shall be issued by placing the same before the next meeting of the Regional Transport Authority or within a period of one month whichever is earlier. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/