IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 19TH JUNE 2008 / 29TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 11669 of 2008(L) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- N.A.SHAMSUDHEEN, S/O.M.J.AHAMED SAHIB, AGED 47 YEARS, NANDANKUZHAYA, ANAMARI P.O., PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.V. MANOJ KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/06/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.11669/2008-L: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE STAT IN M.V.A.A. NO. 712/2007. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE RTA AT ITS MEETING HELD ON 07/03/2008 IN ITEM NO. 31. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 11669 OF 2008 L ==================== Dated this the 19th day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner states that by Ext.P1 judgment of the Tribunal, variation was directed to be granted subject to settlement of timings. According to the petitioner the matter was considered by the RTA and by Ext.P2 proceedings, the RTA declined to implement the judgment on the basis that they decided to file an appeal against Ext.P1. It is aggrieved by Ext.P2 order, this writ petition is filed. 2. In several cases of this nature, this court has taken the view that RTA is not a person aggrieved, but is only expected to carry out the directions of the STAT or this court. On the other hand, if any party is aggrieved by the order of the STAT, it is for that party to pursue the matter by filing appeal or writ petition as the case may be. Therefore, the RTA is only expected to implement Ext.P1 in its letter and spirit instead of taking decision such as the one they have taken in Ext.P2. For this reason, Ext.P2 will stand quashed and it is directed that the RTA will implement Ext.P1 forthwith. WPC 11669/08 :2 : 3. However, this judgment shall not be understood as depriving any person aggrieved from pursing the statutory remedies that are available against Ext.P1 and it is clarified that implementation of Ext.P1 pursuant to this judgment will be subject to the outcome of any such proceedings. 4. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp