Petitioner challenged an RTA order seeking to appeal a Tribunal judgment directing route extension. Court held RTA bound by Tribunal order, quashed RTA action, and directed implementation within four weeks.
Impugned order quashed; RTA directed to implement Tribunal judgment within four weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
THURSDAY, THE 21ST AUGUST 2008 / 30TH SRAVANA 1930
WP(C).No. 13630 of 2008(V)
---------------------------------------
PETITIONER:
------------------
V.REGHUNATHAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, AGED 48 YEARS VAZHAPPALLIL HOUSE, MADATHILKARAZHMA, OACHIRA, KOLLAM.
BY ADV. SRI.SABU S.KALLARAMOOLA
RESPONDENTS:
-----------------------
1. TKHE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE SECRETARY, R.T.A., KOLLAM.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.V.MANOJ KUMAR - R2 ADV. SRI.PEEYUS A. KOTTAM FOR R1
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) NO.13631/2008
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS EXHIBITS
EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE SAID REGULAR PERMIT NO.P.ST.C/4/01/Q/07 DT. 6.1.07.
EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH SHOWING EXISTING ROUTE SKETCH SHOWING THE EXISTING ROUTE AND THE PROPOSED EXTENSION.
EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 4.12.07 IN M.V.A.A. NO. 348/07. EXT.P4:- COPY OF THE DECISION DT. 25.2.2008 OF THE IST RESPONDENT.
/ TRUE COPY/
P.S. TO JUDGE
tss
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
W.P.(C) 13630 of 2008
Dated: AUGUST 21, 2008
JUDGMENT
By Ext.P1, an application was made by the petitioner for variation of the permit. That having been rejected, an appeal (MVAA 348/2007) was filed by the petitioner. The appeal was disposed of by the Tribunal by Ext.P3 judgment, directing the 1st respondent to grant the variation sought for by the petitioner, thereby extend the service upto Kundara - Mukkada. The matter went back to the RTA which, by Ext.P4 proceedings, directed the Secretary to ascertain the possibility of filing an appeal before the High Court. It is challenging Ext.P4, this writ petition has been filed.
RTA has taken in Ext.P4. It has been repeatedly held that once the STAT has passed a judgment in the nature of Ext.P3, incorporating positive directions, the duty of the RTA is only to faithfully carry out the same and not to seek
WP(C) 13630/08
2
to upset the directions issued. In Ext.P4, evidently the endeavour was to overreach the judgment and it cannot be allowed.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
mt/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the RTA can challenge a Tribunal judgment qua seeking possible appeal before the High Court.
Whether an order by RTA trying to upset Tribunal directions can be quashed.
V.REGHUNATHAN
TKHE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOLLAM
THE SECRETARY, R.T.A., KOLLAM
ANTONY DOMINIC
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
