IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 11TH APRIL 2008 / 22ND CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 12894 of 2008(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------- REJI.K., S/O.KOCHU PAPPU, AGED 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT KALYALATHU, CHERIYAZHEEKAL P.O.KARUNAGAPPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK RESPONDENT: --------------- THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOLLAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER, SRI.I.V. PRAMOD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/04/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH, J. ----------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 12894 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of April, 2008 JUDGMENT The application of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the proposed route offends the notified route of KSRTC, vide Ext.P1. By Ext.P2, which according to the petitioner had become final, it is directed that the respondent shall grant regular permit as applied for subject to settlement of timings. However, Ext.P3 has been passed and it is stated that as per the draft notification, the proposed route overlaps the notified route and the Secretary, RTA is directed to ascertain the possibility of filing appeal before the High Court and the matter is pending. 2. Petitioner preferred this writ petition seeking a direction to comply with Ext.P2 judgment of the STAT. Petitioner relies on Ext.P4 judgment, which is passed by a learned Judge of this Court, directing that the 2nd respondent shall implement the judgment of the appellate body. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as Ext.P2 had attained finality, it is not open to the RTA to WPC No. 12894 OF 2008 2 tinker with it but it is bound to comply with the directions in the judgment and the petitioner is entitled to a permit and there is no question of filing an appeal challenging the order of the STAT. It is also clear that it cannot be said that an appeal can be filed against Ext.P2, as no appeal is maintainable in law and what could be possible is to contemplate a writ petition. In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to implement Ext.P2 judgment within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that the grant of permit will be subject to any order that may be passed in any proceedings against Ext.P2. K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE ttb WPC No. 12894 OF 2008 3 WPC No. 12894 OF 2008 4