IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 33454 of 2008(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- U.MANIKANDAN, UPPATH HOUSE, MALLISSERIPARAMBU, SHORNUR. BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD. ADDL.R3. 3. THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KSRTC, PALAKKAD. (Impleaded as per order dated 17.11.2008 in I.A.14633/2008) ADV. SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN, SC, K.S.R.T.C. FOR ADDL.R3 GP SMT.SUDHA DEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).33454/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 17th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT I heard learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.Dinesh Menon and learned Standing Counsel for the KSRTC who appears for the additional respondent. 2. Petitioner is a holder of regular permit on the route Shornur-Thrangali-Ottapalam and the permit is valid upto 2.10.2012. He preferred an application for variation of the permit by way of extension from Kulappully to Kanayam and yet another extension from Nedungottur gate to Kozhippara. RTA rejected the application for variation. But on appeal, as per Ext.P4 judgment, STAT directed variation to be granted. Petitioner's grievance is regarding the delay on the part of the RTA in further proceeding pursuant to Ext.P4. It is evident from Ext.P6, that the RTA has deferred the grant of the variation and has required the Secretary, RTA, to conduct an enquiry regarding the overlapping details of the notified route, whether W.P.(C).33454/2008 2 the change in timing will affect the students adversely and also whether the proposed change in trips will be beneficial to the travelling public. 3. In other words, RTA seems to be re-considering the issue, and going by Ext.P6, RTA has not taken a decision as such to proceed with the grant of the varied permit. This the RTA is obviously not entitled to do. Once the Appellate Tribunal has directed to grant the variation as sought for by the petitioner, RTA has no jurisdiction but to proceed with the grant of the same. If the State or the KSRTC is aggrieved by the decision taken by the STAT, they are entitled to challenge the same in appropriate proceedings. But it is not open to the subordinate authority, RTA, to take steps which are clearly in disobedience of the directions issued by the STAT. 4. In the result, writ petition is allowed. Ext.P6 is quashed and the first respondent is directed to take W.P.(C).33454/2008 3 further steps pursuant to Ext.P4 and issue a varying permit without further delay, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that the judgment will not stand in the way of either the State or the KSRTC challenging Ext.P4 judgment, if they are otherwise advised to do so. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs