IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 18486 of 2005(A)
1. K.S.R.T.C. REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
... Respondent
2. MR.U.D.SHANI,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.RAVIKUMAR, SC, KSRTC
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :29/03/2007
O R D E R
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
-----------------------------------
WP(C) No. 18486 of 2005
-------------------------
Dated, this the 29th day of March, 2007
J U D G M E N T
Heard the counsel for the KSRTC and Adv.
Shri.O.D.Sivadas appearing for the 2nd respondent, whose
name was not shown in the list and the learned Govt. Pleader
appearing for 1st respondent.
2. KSRTC is challenging Ext.P6 order on the ground of
scheme violation. However on going through Ext.P6 I find
the issue decided by the STAT is only with regard to 2nd
respondent’s entitlement for replacement of vehicle, before
commencement of operation, in respect of the vehicle for
which permit was granted. Counsel for the 2nd respondent
rightly pointed out that when vehicle is produced pursuant to
grant of permit, Rule 159(2) is satisfied and it is open to the
operator to substitute the vehicle and commence the
operation with another one after the grant but before the
issue of permit. Since the issue raised by KSRTC has not
considered by the STAT, it does not arise from that order and
therefore, challenge against Ext.P6 order is not maintainable.
So far as KSRTC’s contention is concerned, the RTA has not
W.P.(C)No. 18486/2005
-Page numbers-
considered their objection while granting permit. I feel the
question therefore should be raised through a revision before
the STAT.
This WP(C) is accordingly dismissed.
(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.)
jg