IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2008 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WA.No. 2148 of 2008() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.29229/2008 DATED 20/10/2008 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------ SHEEBA JOSEPH, AGED 38 YEARS, W/O.RAJAN, SANKOORIKAL HOUSE, P.O.MELETTOOR, ANNAMANADA,THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.ANIL S.RAJ SMT.K.N.RAJANI SRI.RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN P. SMT.MANJUSHA MOHANDAS SMT.ANILA PETER RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. D.VENUKUMAR, ASSISTANT MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTOR, R.T.OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. SAJI.H, ASSISTANT MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTOR, R.T.OFFICE, KAYAMKULAM. *ADDL. R5 IMPLEADED ADDL. R5: THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 004. * IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL 5TH RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DATED 03/12/2008 IN I.A. NO.997/2008. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVACIS FOR R1, R2 ADV. SRI.K.R.B.KAIMAL(SR.) FOR R3 ADV. SRI.P.GOPINATH MENON FOR R4 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/12/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ J.B.KOSHY & THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JJ. -------------------------------------- W.A.No.2148 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated 3rd December, 2008 JUDGMENT Koshy,J . Appellant filed the writ petition mainly contending that Note II to sub rule (2) of Rule 5 of the Kerala Transport Subordinate Service Rules, 2008, is ultra vires the provisions contained in sub section (4) of Section 213 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It was also contended that the above rule was amended to get away from the directions issued by the Division Bench of this court in Sirajudheen v. Kerala Public Service Commission (2001 (2) KLT 268). It was further contended that when a writ of mandamus is issued by the High Court, the same cannot be avoided by amending the rules. Even though interim stay was granted at the time of admission of the writ petition, it is vacated by the impugned order. On going through the order, we note that all the contentions were considered by the learned single Judge. It is well settled law that a matter cannot be finally decided in an interim order. We are of the view that no interim order is necessary pending decision of the original petiton. In the above circumstances, parties shall WA.2148/2008 2 approach the learned single Judge with a request to dispose of the writ petition as early as possible, untrammelled by the observations in this judgment. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. J.B.KOSHY JUDGE THOMAS P. JOSEPH JUDGE tks