IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2008 / 28TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 19859 of 2008(L) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- B.MOHANDAS, DAS NIVAS ADICHANALLOOR P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY KOLLAM REP. BY ITS SECRETARY 2. THE SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY KOLLAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.V.MANOJKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/08/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).19859/2008-L APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 24/04/2007. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27/06/2007 IN M.V.A.A. NO.319/2007. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27/03/2008 IN W.P.(C). NO.36328/2007. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 29/04/2008. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE TRIVANDRUM-KOLLAM-KOTTARAKKARA-TRIVANDRUM CIRCULAR SCHEME. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE Rs/ ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.19859/2008 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT An application made by the petitioner for regular permit was rejected by Ext.P1 order of the first respondent on the ground that it offends the notified route Kollam- Schencotta on N.H.208. This was challenged before the STAT and by Ext.P2 judgment STAT held that there is no objectionable overlapping and directed that permit be granted subject to settlement of timings, provided the petitioner is eligible for the grant. 2. Complaining of delay in implementing Ext.P2, petitioner filed a writ petition before this court and that was disposed of by Ext.P3 directing that Ext.P2 be implemented within the time fixed in the judgment. 3. Petitioner now complains that the matter was reconsidered by the first respondent and by Ext.P4, on the WP(c).No.19859/2008 2 ground that the route in question overlaps the notified route, he has been declined regular permit. 4. In my view, the issue as to whether the route in question applied for by the petitioner is offending any notified scheme has already been considered by the STAT and it has been held that there is no objectionable overlapping. Once a finding to that effect has already been rendered by the Tribunal, it is not within the province of the RTA to conduct a further enquiry into the matter and overreach Ext.P2 judgment. This is precisely what has been done by the RTA in Ext.P4. 5. Yet another reason stated in Ext.P4 is that, on the basis of clause (4) of the notification dated 9.5.2007, permit cannot be granted. The draft scheme published by notification dated 9.5.2007 has been finalised by notification dated 6.5.2008 and clause (4) thereof has been set aside by this court in WP(c).Nos.15794/08 and connected cases. In view of this, Ext.P4 is only to be set aside and I do so. RTA shall implement Ext.P2 judgment as expeditiously as WP(c).No.19859/2008 3 possible. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. WP(c).No.19859/2008 4