IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 20TH MARCH 2009 / 29TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 8985 of 2009(P) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ A.J.JOHN, ALUMKAL HOUSE, ANICKAD EAST P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOZHIKODE. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 8985 OF 2009 (P) ===================== Dated this the 20th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner sought renewal of his permit and thereupon concurrence was sought by the primary authority from the sister authorities as per Et.P1. The RTA, Kozhikode by Ext.P2 declined concurrence relying on Rule 2(oa) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules. Petitioner challenged Ext.P2 before the Tribunal by filing MVARP No.394/07. The revision was disposed of by Ext.P3 order setting aside Ext.P2 and directing the respondent to grant concurrence without prejudice to the right of the primary authority, the RTA, Ernakulam, to decide on the nature of service depending on the route length and also after considering the objections of the KSRTC. Accordingly, the matter went back to the respondent and by Ext.P4, for the very same reason stated in Ext.P2 and which was set aside by the Tribunal in Ext.P3, concurrence is once again rejected. It is challenging Ext.P4 the writ petition is filed. 2. A reading of Ext.P2 shows that it was relying on Rule 2(oa) of the KMV Rules that the concurrence was rejected by the WPC 8985/09 :2 : respondent. That was set aside by the Tribunal in Ext.P3 and liberty has been given to the primary authority to decide on the nature of service. However, overlooking the specific directions in the Tribunal in Ext.P3 and again relying on Rule 2(oa) of the KMV Rules, the concurrence is once again rejected. 3. In my view, the stand of the respondent as reflected in Ext.P4 is clearly one showing its attempt to overreach Ext.P3 order passed by the Tribunal. Once the Tribunal has decided the issue, it is the responsibility of the respondent to act in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal. In this case, since the attempt is to overreach Ext.P3, Ext.P4 order passed by the respondent will stand set aside and the respondent is directed to grant concurrence as sought for by the primary authority in terms of Ext.P3 judgment on the production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp