IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 18681 of 2005(Y)
1. RAJAN, S/O.MURUKESAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
... Respondent
2. K.P.ABDUL JALEEL,
3. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.DEEPAK
For Respondent :SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
Dated :17/10/2008
O R D E R
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J.
----------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.18681 OF 2005
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of October, 2008
J U D G M E N T
~~~~~~~~~~~
The petitioner challenges Ext.P12 order of the State
Transport Appellate Tribunal. That order was passed in an
appeal filed by the 2nd respondent herein against Ext.P10 order
of the Regional Transport Authority, Kozhikode. The petitioner
points out that the computation of the number of permits,
available in the general quota, made by the S.T.A.T. for allowing
the appeal was based on Ext.P6 judgment in
O.P.No.22470/2002. The said judgment was rendered relying
on Ext.P5 interim order in O.P.12890/2002. But, that judgment
no longer survives, in view of the final disposal of
O.P.No.12890/2002, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P8
dated 12.9.2008. The petitioner points out that when Ext.P10
decision was taken there were only 400 permits available in
terms of Ext.P2 notification. The 8 permits operated by the
members of the Scheduled Castes were not granted under the
SC quota, but were obtained by the members of the SC, in the
usual course. So, those 8 permits cannot be adjusted against
W.P.(C) No.18681/2005 2
the quota set apart for SC/ST. In Ext.P10 it is found that under
the general quota already 361 permits were issued. So the
assumption that there were further permits available in the
general quota made in Ext.P6 is untenable. Based on that
untenable assumption, the Tribunal made Ext.P10 order, it is
contended.
2. But, I notice that Ext.P6 is a final judgment of this
Court which the Tribunal cannot ignore. I am also bound by
that judgment because it is the judgment of a superior court of
unlimited jurisdiction. It cannot be treated as void and therefore
cannot be attacked collaterally. Therefore, the relief sought by
the petitioner against Ext.P12 cannot be granted, as long as
Ext.P6 remains in force. So, without prejudice to the rights, if
any, of the petitioner to work out his remedy against Ext.P6, the
writ petition is closed.
(K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE)
ps