IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2009 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 24209 of 2008(F) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER : -------------------- K.K.SREEJITH ,AGED 31 S/O.KARTHIKAEYAN, KODAKODATH HOUSE EDAYAKUNNAM, KOCHI-27 BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON SRI.M.JITHESH MENON RESPONDENTS : ------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY ERNAKULAM 2. THE SECRETRAY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY ERNAKULAM . SHRI. M.A. ASIF, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 24209 / 2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE CASTE CERTIFICATE DATED 29/03/2005. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF APPLICAITON FOR REGULAR PERMIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 20/4/2006. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER CONTAINING THE TIMINGS FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 20/4/2006. EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 21/8/2007. EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN MVAA NO.727/2007 DATED 28/02/2008. EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN MVAA NO.727/2007 DATED 28/04/2008. EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE MODIFIED PROPOSAL FIELD BY the PETITIONER DATED 16/05/2008. EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 21/06/2008. EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN M.V.A.A No.395/2008 DATED 20/9/2008. EXHIBIT P10: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A. NO.2056/2003 DATED 21/10/2004. EXHIBIT P11: TRUE COPY OFTHE ORDER IN M.P. NO.2244/08 IN MVARP NO.305/2008 DATED 19/9/2008. /TRUE COPY/ P.A TO JUDGE scm ANTONY DOMINIC, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 24209 of 2008 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT An application was made by the petitioner for a regular permit on the route Kothad- South Chittoor- Thevara Junction. That was rejected as per Exhibit P4 proceedings of the first respondent. In M.V.A.A No.727/2007, by Exhibit P6 the STAT set aside Exhibit P4. Operative portion of Exhibit P6 reads as under; “ In the result, this appeal is allowed and setting aside the impugned order, the matter is remanded to the first respondent with direction to grant regular permit to the appellant, if he files a modified proposal within one month from today, limiting the terminals of the proposed route within five kilometres from the periphery of the city.” 2. Matter when went back and by Exhibit P8 proceedings, the RTA adjourned the matter directing the petitioner to submit a modified application by avoiding overlapping on notified route and by providing vehicle with a wheel base not less than 510 cm. W.P.(C) No. 24209 /2008 2 It is aggrieved by the aforesaid two directions of the RTA this writ petition has been filed. 3. As can be seen from Exhibit P6 judgment rendered by STAT, the STAT has not imposed any conditions similar to those imposed by RTA in Exhibit P8. It is a settled position of law that when STAT issues positive directions, as done in Exhibit P6 judgment, the authority of the RTA is only ministerial, and should carry out the directions of the Tribunal. It cannot impose any condition in addition to what has been ordered by the STAT. Therefore, the conditions imposed in Exhibit P8 cannot be sustained in the light of Exhibit P6 judgment of the Tribunal. The writ petition is therefore disposed of quashing conditions imposed by the RTA in Exhibit P8 and directing the RTA to grant regular permit to the petitioner, if he has submitted a modified proposal, as directed in Exhibit P6 judgment. Final orders in the above matter shall be passed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within eight weeks of production of copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE scm