IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2008 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 14161 of 2008(J) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------------ C.L.ANDREWS, CHAZHOOR HOUSE, PUTHENKUNNU P.O, S.BATTERY, WAYANAD. BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOZHIKODE, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KZOHIKODE. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.14161/2008 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner submits that he was holding a regular permit on the route, Nambiarkunnu-Kozhikode. As the permit was expiring, the petitioner applied for its renewal. After several rounds of litigation, the matter was finally considered by the RTA in their meeting held on 25.4.2007 and rejected the request for renewal. Petitioner challenged the order of the RTA by filing Appeal No.408/2007 before the STAT. STAT disposed of the appeal by Ext.P1 judgment. In this judgment both the grounds of rejection were overruled and it was directed that the renewal of the permit shall be granted in the manner it was already granted. It is complaining that, despite the judgment as above, renewal has not been granted so far, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for an expeditious 2 implementation of Ext.P1. 2. The learned Government Pleader submits that Ect.P1 judgment is erroneous. According to her, by virtue of the earlier orders passed by the STAT, the application of the petitioner was considered as an application for a fresh grant and it was therefore that the same was rejected by the RTA in their meeting held on 27.4.2007. 3. Even if there is force in the submission now made by the Government Pleader, the fact remains that Ext.P1 judgment of the Tribunal has not been challenged by any one of the parties. So long as Ext.P1 holds the field, the respondents are bound to implement the same. In view of this, I see no justification to decline the prayer of the petitioner for an expeditious implementation of Ext.P1. 4. Accordingly, I direct that the renewal as directed by the Tribunal shall be granted as expeditiously as possible, within 8 weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. However, taking into account the submission of the Government Pleader that there is a proposal to 3 challenge Ext.P1, it is clarified that implementation of Ext.P1 will be subject to challenge in any appropriate proceedings by the Government or by other affected parties. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. 4