IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2010 / 30TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 16187 of 2008(B) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- KERALA STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION REPRESENTD BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADV. SHRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN, SC, KSRTC SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR,SC, KSRTC SHRI P.BENJAMIN PAUL,SC, KSRTC RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY KOZHIKODE. 3. ANNAMMA ABRAHAM, MANAGING PARTNER SHORANUR ROAD TRANSPORTS, SHORANAUR 679 121. 4. THE SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD. ADV. MR.MILLU DANDAPANI FOR R3 MR. ANTONY MUKKATH – GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/10 /2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 16187 of 2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: COPY OF JUDGMENT DTD 3.10.2007. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS EXT.R3(1): COPY OF PERMIT ISSUED BY THE R.T.A.. PALAKKAD. EXT.R3(2): COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN MVAA 418/2008, DTD 7.11.2008. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.16187 OF 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation is the petitioner herein. They are aggrieved by Ext.P1 order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam in M.V.A.R.P.No.390/2007, whereby the first respondent was directed to grant prior concurrence for the renewal of the existing permit of the third respondent without prejudice to the right of the primary authority to decide the nature of service in the light of the objection raised by the District Transport Officer, Kozhikode. 2. A memo has been filed by the third respondent stating that subsequently both the authorities had given concurrence and therefore, the issue does not survive. But the learned Standing Counsel for the KSRTC submits that still the question of law as to whether the STAT can interfere with the power of the sister authority to grant concurrence remains to be settled. I am of W.P.(c)No.16187/08 2 opinion that, that question of law can be decided in a better case later. Therefore, leaving open the question of law to be decided in another case, this writ petition is closed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(c)No.16187/08 3