IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH MARCH 2007 / 23RD PHALGUNA 1928 WP(C).No. 8637 of 2007(C) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ 1. K.RADHAKRISHNA RAI, S/O.PRABHAKAR RAI, AGED 42 YEARS, `DURGA SADAN', P.O.CHARLA, MANJESWARAM, KASARGODE DISTRICT. 2. JAWAHAR NAZARATH, S/O.REYMOND NAZARATH, AGED 47 YEARS, 3/76, KTL COMPOUND, NEAR KRISHNA TALKIES, KASARGODE. 3. MALINGA PATALI, THIMMAPPA PATALI, AGED 65 YEARS, GUDDE TEMPLE ROAD, P.O.KUDULU, KASARGOD DISTRICT. 4. LOKANATHAN, S/O.K.VENKATARAMAN, AGED 55 YEARS, SADH MANSION, NEAR KANTHERI DHOOMAVATHI TEMPLE, SURATKAL, MANGALORE, KARNATAKA. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. HARISH KUMAR SHETTY, LOKAYA RAI COMPOUND, KARAMBETTU, JAPPINAMOGARU, MANGALORE. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/03/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 8637 OF 2007-C ----------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The petitioners challenge Exts.P16 and P17 orders of the Secretary, S.T.A., Thiruvananthapuram. They are orders granting counter-signature for renewal of permits by the Secretary, S.T.A., in exercise of the delegated powers granted by the State Transport Authority. Therefore, the petitioners can challenge them in revision before the S.T.A.T., if they have necessary locus standi for the same. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners pointed out that they are only administrative actions and therefore, revision may not lie. But, what has been granted under those orders is counter-signature for renewal of the permits, which should normally be granted by the S.T.A. In exercise of the delegated powers, the same has been done by the Secretary. Therefore, those orders are definitely amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of the S.T.A.T. Accordingly, the writ petition is closed without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioners and their right to invoke the revisional remedy before the S.T.A.T. 14th March, 2007. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. Nm/