IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2008 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 36298 of 2008(U) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: ---------------- E.A.MOHAMMED, S/O. E.K.ABOOBACKER, ERUPPAKOTTAIL HOUSE PERINGALA P.O. BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK RESPONDENT: ----------------- THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ERNAKULAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SUDHA DEVI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).36298/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 10th day of December, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner operates a regular stage carriage on the route Poothotta-Kaloor, as evidenced by Ext.P1. He sought for a variation of the permit which, though rejected by the RTA, was allowed by the STAT as per Ext.P4. STAT directed the RTA to allow the variation as sought for by the petitioner subject to settlement of timings. RTA, on reconsideration, pursuant to the directions of the STAT, held as follows:- “Reconsidered. Adjourned. Direct the applicant to furnish the parking arrangement made by him at the High Court Jn. Since the traffic police intimated that there is no more parking facility of bus terminal at High Court Jn. and objected terminating stage carriage trips there.” 2. This has been challenged by the petitioner in the writ petition. W.P.(C).36298/2008 2 3. Heard learned Government Pleader also. It has been repeatedly held by this Court that RTA is the inferior authority to STAT, going by the hierarchy of authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act. If the State is aggrieved by the decision taken by the STAT, it is open to them to challenge the same. It is not open to the RTA to decline to implement the directions of the STAT. 4. Accordingly, Ext.P5 is set aside and the RTA is directed to proceed further pursuant to Ext.P4 and needful shall be done within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that this direction will be valid till such time as Ext.P4 remains operative and this will be without prejudice to the right of the State to challenge Ext.P4, if so advised. Writ petition is disposed of as above. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs