IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 1ST APRIL 2008 / 12TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 3669 of 2008(J) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- MUJEEB REHIMAN, CONVENER, SGSY GROUP, VARIKKODE, KODUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.M.R.SABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/03/2008, THE COURT ON 01/04/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.3669/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR THE GRANT OF REGULAR PERMIT ON THE ROUTE PERINTALMANNA-TIRUR DATED 2.12.2006. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE 1ST RESPONDNT AT ITS MEETING HELD ON 24.1.2007 VIDE ADDL.ITEM NO.15. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE STAT IN MVAA 150 OF 2007 DT.26.3.2007. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT AT ITS MEETING HELD ON 7.8.2007 IN ADDITIONAL ITEM NO.17. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 3669 OF 2008 J ==================== Dated this the 1st day of April, 2008 J U D G M E N T Ext.P1 is an application made by the petitioner for regular permit on the route Perinthalmanna-Tirur and was rejected by the 1st respondent as per Ext.P2 dated 24.1.2007. Appeal filed against Ext.P2 was disposed of by the Tribunal vide Ext.P3 judgment dated 26.3.2007 directing grant of permit subject to settlement of timing. Accordingly, the matter was again considered by the respondents and was rejected by Ext.P4, for the reason that the grant would offend the terms of the notification dated 9.5.2007. 2. Counsel submits that since the application was submitted in December 2006, and by Ext.P3 judgment dated 26.3.2007 permit was ordered to be granted, the notification dated 9.5.2007 is of no relevance. Factually the dates mentioned by the learned counsel cannot be disputed. I notice that referring to the Apex Court judgment in Sharif Ahmad v. R.T.A. Meerut (AIR 1978 SC 209), a Division Bench of this court disposed of WA 132/2008, by judgment dated 17.1.2008, in which this very contention is directed to be reconsidered. A reading of the Apex Court judgment shows that once grant is ordered by the Tribunal, what remains WPC 3669/08 :2 : is only ministerial and any notification issued subsequent o the grant is of no relevance. 3. Applying the aforesaid principle, I quash Ext.P4 and direct that the matter shall be reconsidered in the light of the observations made above. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp