IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2009 / 19TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 19384 of 2009(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- E.P.VINOJ, EDATTU HOUSE, VADAYAR THALAYOLAPARAMBU, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM. BY GP SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).19384/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 10th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner applied for a regular permit on the route Ernakulam – Kottayam as Limited Stop Ordinary Service. The application was rejected by the 1st respondent. But in appeal as per Ext.P3 judgment dated 2.4.2007, the Tribunal directed the permit be granted subject to settlement of timings. The matter was again placed before the RTA for complying with the directions issued by the Tribunal. There upon, as evidenced by Ext.P4, 1st respondent adjourned the matter in the following manner. “Heard. Perused the judgment of Honourable STAT in MVAA No.108/07. The proposed route overlaps 28 Kms from Ettumanur to Vaikom and 26 Kms. From Kanjiramattom to Ernakulam on the notified route Ernakulam – Thekkady vide notification No.12951/B1/2001/Tran., dt, 9.5.07. Grant of fresh permit to private operators by overlapping on notified route is violation of above scheme. This authority is satisfied that W.P.(C).19384/2009 2 the Honourable STAT has not properly considered this aspect. Hence adjourned for filing appeal. Secretary is authorised to obtain permission from Government.” 2. Apparently, this was done as early as in 2007. Yet no action has been taken and hence the writ petition. Learned Government Pleader submits that proceedings were adjourned after reporting the matter to the Transport Commissioner with a request that the decision in Ext.P3 may be challenged before a suitable forum. 3. The stand taken by the 1st respondent is clearly illegal. 1st respondent as the original authority is bound by the directions given by the Tribunal. This view has been repeatedly affirmed by this Court. 1st respondent cannot have any grievance nor is it entitled to take any exception to the directions issued by the appellate authority. State may have the liberty to challenge a decision taken by the STAT. RTA is bound by the directions given by the appellate authority. W.P.(C).19384/2009 3 4. In the circumstances, Ext.P4 is quashed and the 1st respondent is directed to grant the permit as directed in Ext.P3 judgment within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs