IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2009 / 4TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 24616 of 2009(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.T.ANIYANKUNJU, PUTHUVEETTIL AJI NIVAS, COLLECOTORATE PO, KOTTAYAM BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK RESPONDENT(S): --------------- REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, KOTTAYAM. BY GP SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).24616/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 26th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner who operates a stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-05/T 5173 on the route Thekkemala – Kottayam via Mundakayam with a regular permit, applied for variation of the permit by way of curtailment from Mundakkayam to Thekkemala. The application for variation was rejected by the RTA. But in appeal, as per Ext.P1, the Appellate Tribunal directed the variation be granted. The operative portion of Ext.P1 reads as follows:- In the result, this appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside, thereby directing the first respondent to grant the modified variation as sought for by the appellant, thereby curtailing two trips from Mundakkayam to Thekkemala and extending those two trips upto Elamkad, subject to settlement of timings. 2. By reason of Ext.P1, which is stated to have become final, RTA was bound to grant the varied permit in terms of W.P.(C).24616/2009 2 the directions in Ext.P1. But the request made by the petitioner on the strength of Ext.P1 was considered by the RTA, Kottayam and again rejected as per Ext.P3 which is under challenge in this writ petition. 3. RTA is a subordinate authority to the STAT in the hierarchy of Tribunals. It is not open to the RTA to take a decision superceding as it were the view taken by the Appellate Authority. It may be open to the State or in certain limited cases, for any aggrieved person to challenge the decision taken by the STAT. But it is not open to the RTA to reconsider the matter and then sit in judgment over the decision taken by the STAT. 4. In the circumstances, Ext.P3 is set aside and the respondent is directed to take further steps in terms of Ext.P1 judgment and grant the varied permit subject to settlement of timings within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that this direction is conditional upon Ext.P1 having become W.P.(C).24616/2009 3 final and it is further made clear that this direction will not stand in the way of the State challenging Ext.P1. So also if any other operator is aggrieved by Ext.P1, then subject to the limited grounds available to such operators it would be open to them to challenge Ext.P1, if otherwise advised and if it is otherwise possible. Writ petition is disposed of as above. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs