IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 33478 of 2007(I)
1. K.T.MOOSAKUTTY HAJI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
... Respondent
2. THE SECRETARY,
3. MOHAMMED, S/O POCKER,
For Petitioner :SRI.ANIL SIVARAMAN
For Respondent :SRI.BABU S. NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :28/11/2007
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
==================
W.P.(C) NO.33478 OF 2007
==================
Dated this the 28th day of November, 2007
J U D G M E N T
The controversy in this writ petition is regarding the
implementation of Ext.R3(a) and the consequent order Ext.P3.
By Ext.R3(a), appeal filed by the 3rd respondent was allowed and
the RTA was directed to grant permit as claimed subject to
settlement of timings. In pursuance to Ext.R3(a), the 1st
respondent considered the matter and issued Ext.P3 dated
7/8/07, by which the 3rd respondent was granted permit again
subject to the settlement of timings. The writ petitioner
complains that without settling the timings as directed by the
STAT or RTA, permit is going to be issued to the 3rd respondent
and hence this writ petition.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is certainly well
founded. In both Exts. R3(a) and Ext.P3, it was made clear that
the grant of permit is subject to settlement of timings. If that be
so, permit cannot be issued except after settling the timings.
Therefore the writ petitioner is entitled to succeed.
WPC No.33478/07
: 2 :
3. The counsel for the 3rd respondent refers to the
judgment of this court in WP(C) No.18281/07, which was passed
in a writ petition filed by him. True, in that judgment rendered
on 3rd October, 2007, this court directed implementation of the
STAT order. But then, long before the judgment was rendered,
the RTA had already passed Ext.P3 proceedings on 7/8/07.
Therefore, had it been known to this court that the RTA had
already issued the proceedings, the judgment would not have
been rendered in that matter and it is the 3rd respondent who is
responsible for inviting such a judgment.
4. Writ petitioner is entitled to succeed. It is directed
that the 2nd respondent shall not issue permit to the 3rd
respondent unless and until timing is settled as directed in Exts.
R3(a) and Ext.P3. It is directed that the 1st respondent shall take
action for settlement of timings as ordered in Ext.R3(a) and
Ext.P3, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp