IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 21ST AUGUST 2008 / 30TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 24595 of 2008(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- A.J.GEORGE, ADOOKATTIL, KUZHIYARA.P.O, CHOTTANIKKARA-682312. BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALUVA RURAL. 3. CHOTTANIKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CHOTTANIKKARA. 4. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PIRAVOM. 5. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MULANTHURUTHY. 6. THE SECRETARY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT AUTO RICKSHAW DRIVERS ASSOCIATION, CITU, REGISTRATION NO.305/86, CHOTTANIKKARA PANCHAYAT COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SRI.SYAMAMANDA BHADRAN. BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE FOR R6 SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE FOR R6 SRI.S.SREEKUMAR, SC FOR R3 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.V.MANOJ KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.24595/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION NO.13 OF THE PANCHAYAT COMMITTEE DT 13.11.2007. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN THE MEETING HELD ON 27.11.2007. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT 29.2.2008 OF THE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM IN MVARP NO.2/2008. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF the GRAMA SABHA CONVENED ON 12.7.2008, IN THE 4TH WARD OF the CHOTTANIKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF the GRAMA SABHA COVENED ON 12/7/2008 IN THE 3RD WARD OF THE CHOTTANIKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 24595 OF 2008 C ==================== Dated this the 21st day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T Ext.P1 is a resolution passed by the 3rd respondent Panchayat, resolving to shift two bus stops, an auto stand, a taxi stand and a goods carriage parking place. From Ext.P2 proceedings of the RTA, it is seen that the RTA has also granted approval for the same. A revision against Exts.P1 and P2 filed by the 6th respondent was dismissed by Ext.P3 order of the STAT. Petitioner points out that the Grama Sabha has also passed Exts. P4 and P5 resolutions for implementing the aforesaid decisions. It also did not yield any result. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition is filed praying essentially for ensuring the implementation of Exts. P1 and P2. 2. Now that the Panchayat itself has passed Ext.P1 resolution which has been approved by the RTA and confirmed by the STAT, there is no reason why the said decision is not implemented. 3. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the 3rd respondent shall take steps for the implementation of Exts. P1 and P2, as expeditiously as possible. In the process, if the 3rd respondent feels that any assistance of respondents 4 and 5 is necessary, I direct that on WPC 24595/08 :2 : the production of a copy of this judgment, the aforesaid respondents shall render necessary assistance to the 3rd respondent. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp