IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 4673 of 2009(F)
1. HAMEEDKUNJU, S/O.ALIYARUKUNNU
... Petitioner
Vs
1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOLLAM.
... Respondent
2. SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
For Petitioner :SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :12/02/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
-------------------------
W.P.(C.) No.4673 of 2009
---------------------------------
Dated, this the 12th day of February, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Application made by the petitioner for a regular permit for
operating on the route Mundukottakkal – Kottamkulangara Temple
(via) Vallikavu, Karunagappally, Kollaka, Chennankara, Savitha
Junction and Kottukadu was rejected by the RTA as per Ext.P1
proceedings. Against the order of rejection, the petitioner filed
appeal as MVAA No.633/2007. The appeal was disposed of by
Ext.P2 judgment setting aside Ext.P1 and directing the 1st
respondent to grant regular permit as applied for by the petitioner
subject to settlement of timings. The matter went back to the 1st
respondent and the 1st respondent considered the petitioner’s
request on 29/04/2008, and on that day the 1st respondent passed
the following decision:-
“As per the draft Notification scheduled No.04 of
No.12951/B1/2001/Tran. Dated 09/05/2007 “In the private
sector, permits, regular and temporary existed on or prior to
18/04/2007 along will continue as such. Fresh permit will be
given to the State Transport Undertaking only.”
In this case a portion of 2.4 kms from Karunagappally
WP(C) No.4673/2009
-2-High School Junction to Kollaka Pallimukku objectionably
overlaps Thiruvananthapuram-Palakkadu Notified scheme
(Notification No.25275/B/66/PW dated 26/08/1966) and
Thiruvananthapuram – Kannur Notified scheme (Notification
No.18118/TB3/66/PW dated 11/8/1966) vide draft
Notification No.12951/B1/2001/Tran dated 09/05/2007.
Hence the Regional Transport Authority cannot grant the
permit as ordered by the Hon’ble State Transport Appellate
Tribunal, Ernakulam. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority
to bring the fact before the notice of the Hon’ble State
Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam. Adjourned.”
A reading of Ext.P3 quoted above would show that the 1st
respondent has taken a view that the permit cannot be granted for
the reasons stated therein.
2. It is to be noticed that it is on the same reasoning that by
Ext.P1, initially the permit was rejected. That was set aside by the
Tribunal and the Tribunal directed grant of permit as per Ext.P2.
Once the Tribunal has rendered a judgment directing grant of
permit, all that the RTA has to do is ministerial act of granting the
permit, and the RTA cannot sit in judgment over the Tribunal’s
Judgment or do anything overreaching the judgment rendered by
the Tribunal. Therefore, the stand taken by the RTA in Ext.P3 is
WP(C) No.4673/2009
-3-
totally unacceptable and is, accordingly, set aside.
3. The RTA is directed to implement Ext.P2 judgment as
directed by the STAT, in its true letter and spirit.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg