IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2008 / 28TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 20471 of 2008(K) -------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: -------------------- 1. S.SUDHAKAR, 1/287(1), SMITHAS, KUNNUMPURAM, KALPATHY,PALAKKAD. 2. ARAVINDAKSHAN, S/O.KOCHAN, CHALLAKKAD, POST PUDUSSERY, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUHTORITY, PALAKKAD REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).20471/2008-K APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 17/09/2007 REJECTING THE 1ST PETITIONER'S APPLICATION. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 17/09/2007 REJECTING THE 2ND PETITIONER'S APPLICATION. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE S.T.A.T ERNAKULAM M.V.A.A. NO.761/2007 DATED 05/02/2008. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF S.T.A.T. ERNAKULAM IN M.V.A.A. NO.762/2007 DATED 05/02/2008. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 23/04/2008 IN ITEM NO.4. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 23/04/2008 IN ITEM NO.5. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE Rs/ ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.20471/2008 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT Rejection of the applications for regular permits made by the petitioners were challenged before the STAT in MV.A.A.Nos.761/2007 and 762/2007. These appeals were allowed and the RTA was directed to grant fresh permit as applied for by the petitioner. The judgments rendered by the STAT are Exts.P3 and P4. Counsel for the petitioner complains that, when the matter went back to the STAT, the STAT by Exts.P5 and P6 directed the secretary to contact Government and obtain expert opinion and place the matter before the RTA. It is challenging Exts.P5 and P6 that the writ petition has been filed. 2. In my view, the attempt on the part of the RTA to overreach the order of the STAT cannot be approved. In WP(c).No.20471/2008 2 Exts.P3 and P4, in categorical terms, the STAT directed that, fresh permits be granted as applied for by the petitioners. Once such a positive direction is issued, it is the duty of the RTA to implement the order of the STAT. Exts.P5 and P6 orders are liable to be quashed and are accordingly quashed. The first respondent is directed to grant the permits as directed by the STAT in Exts.P3 and P4. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. WP(c).No.20471/2008 3