IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 22ND MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 34158 of 2007(N) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- A.J.JOHN, ALUMKAL HOUSE, ANICKAD EAST P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK. RESPONDENT: --------------------- THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOTTAYAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/02/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.34158/2007-N: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE R.T.A, KOTTAYAM DTD. 21/12/2006. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 30/03/2007 IN M.V.A.A. NO. 195/2007. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 22/06/2007 IN W.P.(C). NO. 17785/2007. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE R.T.A. KOTTAYAM DTD. 07/08/2007. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 29/05/2007 IN W.P.(C). NO. 16243/2007. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 34158 of 2007 ------------------------------------- Dated: February 11, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner had made an application for a regular permit and that was rejected by the RTA as per Ext.P1. That order was challenged before the Tribunal by filing an appeal which was allowed by Ext.P2 judgment and the RTA was directed to grant permit subject to settlement of timings. It is stated that when further action following the judgment was not taken, WP(C) 17785/07 was filed before this court. That writ petition was disposed of directing completion of follow up action pursuant to Ext.P2 within one month. It is stated that when the matter was taken up for consideration by the RTA, in Ext.P4 the RTA decided to adjourn the matter for filing an appeal against Ext.P2 judgment of the STAT. The petitioner now complains that nothing further has happened pursuant to Ext.P4. It is in this background this writ petition has been filed praying for implementation of Ext.P2. 2. True, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the 2nd respondent has decided in Ext.P4 to adjourn the WP(C) 34158/07 Page numbers proceedings for filing an appeal against Ext.P2 judgment. In my view, the 1st respondent is totally incompetent to do that. The 1st respondent cannot be said to be an aggrieved person to challenge Ext.P2, but was only expected to implement Ext.P2 judgment in letter and spirit. If that be so, this action in deferring the proceedings with a decision to seek appellate remedy against Ext.P2 is clearly impermissible. Accordingly I dispose of this writ petition directing that the 1st respondent shall implement the terms of Ext.P2 judgment of the STAT as directed in Ext.P3 judgment. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. However, such implementation shall be subject to any appellate or other order that may be passed against Ext.P2 order. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-