IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2008 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 12924 of 2008(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- V.SREEKUMAR, S/O VISHWANATHA PILLAI, AGED 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT THUNDIL VEEDU, MURANTHAL, PERINAD P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOLLAM. 2. S.SREEKUMAR, DEEPASREE, MANGAD P.O., KOLLAM. 3. PRIVATE BUS OPERATOR'S FEDERATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, LAWRENCE BABU, CAMP OFFICE, BEACH ROAD, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.ANIL SIVARAMAN FOR R2,3 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.V.MANOJ KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.12924/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE RTA, KOLLAM DT.20.07.2007. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT.31/10/2007 IN MVAA NO.605/2007. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE RTA, KOLLAM DT.25.2.2008. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT.11/2/2008 IN WPC NO.34158/2007. EXTS. OF R2 AND R3 EXT.R2(a): TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT DT.6.5.2008. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 12924 OF 2008 (L) = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 10th June 2008 J U D G M E N T The challenge is against Ext. P3 proceedings of the R.T.A adjourning implementation of Ext. P2 on the ground that W.P.(C) No. 34713/07 is pending before this Court and final judgment is awaited. It is also stated in Ext.P3 that the Secretary, R.T.A. will ascertain the possibility of filing an appeal against Ext. P2 judgment of the STAT. In any view, both these reasons cannot be sustained. 2. This Court in several cases held that the RTA is only to implement the order or the judgment of the Tribunal and is not an aggrieved party to file an appeal against any such orders. Therefore the direction to the Secretary to ascertain the possibility of filing an appeal, is illegal and can be no reason to defer implementation of Ext.P2. 3. The further reason stated in Ext.P3 is the pendency of the writ petition, viz., W.P.(C) No.34713/07. In the writ petition, so long as there is no order restraining implementation of Ext.P2 the W.P.(C) No. 12924 OF 2008 - 2 - mere pendency of the writ petition can be no reason to delay the matter. 4. Therefore, directing that Ext. P2 order of the STAT will be implemented by the RTA as expeditiously as possible and clarifying that the implementation of Ext. P2 will be subject to the outcome of W.P.(C) No. 34713/07 this writ petition is disposed of. It is directed that reconsideration shall be completed within a period of 4 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-