Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 1081
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J
P.K DEVI – Appellant
Versus
THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, VATAKARA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 42416 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri.K.V.Gopinathan Nair
For the Respondents: Smt.G.Chitra, Sri.O.D.Sivadas, Smt. Surya Binoy, Sr. GP.
The court emphasizes timely decisions by tribunals on interim orders affecting service continuity in transport matters.
Headnote:This judgment discusses a Writ Petition seeking Mandamus directed towards the State Transport Appellate Tribunal regarding interim orders on a temporary permit, highlighted by the petitioner's issues with the operation of services on a specific route. The court finds merit in allowing the interim authority to persist till the Tribunal resolves pending applications related to the case. Key determinations were framed around the need for timely tribunal actions on interceding matters affecting service continuity, thus recognizing existing legal protocols. The final order establishes provisions for the petitioner to maintain services while awaiting detailed tribunal resolution.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition seeks mandamus for interim order. (Para 1) |
| 2. discussion of interim permit status and objections. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. court directs tribunal for timely resolution on applications. (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed with the following prayers.
“i) To issue a writ of Mandamus directing the State Transport Appellate Tribunal to extent the interim order by passing orders on Ext-P7 Miscellaneous petition pending the M.P.No.2504/2025 in appeal MVAA No.
147/2024 at the earliest, in the interest of justice.
ii) To issue a writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to permit the petitioner to continue the service by maintaining status quo, till orders are passed by the Tribunal in Ext-P7 or till the judgment is rendered by the Tribunal in MVAA No.147/2024 whichever is earlier, in the interest of justice.
iii) To issue any other appropriate writ, direction or order which this Hon’ble Court deem fit in the circumstances of the case.
iv) To dispense with the filing of translation of vernacular documents;”
2. It is seen from Ext.P5 order that in the appeal preferred by the petitioner herein, the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Vatakara, was directed to issue a temporary permit on the route Thannerpanthal-Panoor for SC KL 13/AA 2527 stood in the name of
3rd respondent who is the transferee in place of KL 13/M 7071 for a period of 40 days. After the passing of the said order, the contesting respondents 4 to 10 entered appearance and objected to the extension of the interim order. Thereafter, no orders were passed by the Tribunal, and the application preferred was posted along with the appeal. It is aggrieved by this that the writ petition was filed.
3. This court had passed an interim order on 12.11.2025 as follows.
“The learned Government Pleader takes notice for respondents 1 and 2. Issue notice by speed post to respondents 3 to 10. In view of the interim order passed by the Tribunal directing issuance of a temporary permit, the petitioner will be permitted to continue the service on the route Thannerpanthal - Panoor for a period of two months. Post on 06.01.2026.”
4. Though the learned counsel for the contesting respondents opposed the grant of extension of the temporary permit initially granted by the Tribunal, taking note of the fact that the appeal itself is pending consideration before the Tribunal, I am inclined to direct the Tribunal either to pass orders in the interlocutory application seeking temporary permit by the petitioner or pass orders in the appeal itself within a month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. All the contentions of the parties are left open. Till orders are passed as directed above, the interim order granted by this court will continue to operate.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
