T.P.Mohammedkutty vs The Secretary on 21 October, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 30594 of 2008(P)


1. T.P.MOHAMMEDKUTTY, WESTAR CLASSIC,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.I.DINESH MENON

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI

 Dated :21/10/2008

 O R D E R
                       V.GIRI, J
                     -------------------
                 W.P.(C).30594/2008
                     --------------------
       Dated this the 21st day of October, 2008

                     JUDGMENT

Petitioner operates a regular stage carriage on

the route Palakkad – Kadmpuzha. While so, petitioner

sought for variation of the conditions of the permit.

This, though rejected under Ext.P3 by the RTA, was

challenged by the petitioner in appeal before the

Tribunal. Tribunal directed the variation to be

accepted subject to settlement of timings as per Ext.P4

judgment. Grievance of the petitioner is the non-

implementation of the directions of the STAT by the

RTA. Hence the writ petition.

2. RTA is bound by the decision taken by its

appellate authority. It cannot therefore, either defer

implementation of the judgment or find out other

reasons to dilute the binding effect of the directions

issued by its appellate authority. RTA would be well

advised to consider the stringent observations made by

this Court in the judgment in Writ Petition

No.25264/2004 produced as Ext.P6 along with this writ

W.P.(C).30594/2008
2

petition. I find from Ext.P7, that the RTA has also

issued a direction to the Secretary, RTA, to ascertain

whether the curtailment of trip will adversely affect the

travelling facility of the school students. In other words,

RTA seems to be considering the possibility of dealing

with the application for variation of the conditions of the

permit, otherwise than in the manner directed by the

STAT under Ext.P4 judgment. RTA is not entitled to do

so.

3. Having heard learned Government Pleader also,

writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to

proceed to take further steps pursuant to Ext.P4

judgment of the STAT and issue a varied permit as

directed therein and further proceed to direct the

Secretary, RTA to settle the timings within a time

frame. This shall be done as early as possible, at any

rate, within a period of two months from the date of

receipt of a copy of this judgment.

V.GIRI,
Judge

mrcs