IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 33454 of 2008(G)
1. U.MANIKANDAN, UPPATH HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
... Respondent
2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT
For Petitioner :SRI.I.DINESH MENON
For Respondent :SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN, SC, K.S.R.T.C.
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :17/11/2008
O R D E R
V.GIRI, J
-------------------
W.P.(C).33454/2008
--------------------
Dated this the 17th day of November, 2008
JUDGMENT
I heard learned counsel for the petitioner
Mr.Dinesh Menon and learned Standing Counsel for
the KSRTC who appears for the additional respondent.
2. Petitioner is a holder of regular permit on the
route Shornur-Thrangali-Ottapalam and the permit is
valid upto 2.10.2012. He preferred an application for
variation of the permit by way of extension from
Kulappully to Kanayam and yet another extension
from Nedungottur gate to Kozhippara. RTA rejected
the application for variation. But on appeal, as per
Ext.P4 judgment, STAT directed variation to be
granted. Petitioner’s grievance is regarding the delay
on the part of the RTA in further proceeding pursuant
to Ext.P4. It is evident from Ext.P6, that the RTA has
deferred the grant of the variation and has required
the Secretary, RTA, to conduct an enquiry regarding
the overlapping details of the notified route, whether
W.P.(C).33454/2008
2
the change in timing will affect the students adversely
and also whether the proposed change in trips will be
beneficial to the travelling public.
3. In other words, RTA seems to be re-considering
the issue, and going by Ext.P6, RTA has not taken a
decision as such to proceed with the grant of the varied
permit. This the RTA is obviously not entitled to do.
Once the Appellate Tribunal has directed to grant the
variation as sought for by the petitioner, RTA has no
jurisdiction but to proceed with the grant of the same. If
the State or the KSRTC is aggrieved by the decision
taken by the STAT, they are entitled to challenge the
same in appropriate proceedings. But it is not open to
the subordinate authority, RTA, to take steps which are
clearly in disobedience of the directions issued by the
STAT.
4. In the result, writ petition is allowed. Ext.P6 is
quashed and the first respondent is directed to take
W.P.(C).33454/2008
3
further steps pursuant to Ext.P4 and issue a varying
permit without further delay, at any rate, within two
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment. It is made clear that the judgment will not
stand in the way of either the State or the KSRTC
challenging Ext.P4 judgment, if they are otherwise
advised to do so.
V.GIRI,
Judge
mrcs