The above writ petition is filed for implementation of Ext.P1 order passed by the Tribunal. The petitioner also contends that the RTA has to necessarily comply with the directions in Ext.P1. The petitioner places reliance on the decision reported in Thomas v. Regional Transport Authority (2004(3) KLT 599). 2. The aforecited decision states the irrefutable principle that in the hierarchical system of Courts/Tribunals; the judgments of the Higher Courts/Tribunals, once pronounced, will have to be faithfully followed and respected by the Lower Courts/Tribunals. However no such positive direction is seen in Ext.P1. Ext.P1 definitely rejected the contentions of the revision petitioners and noticed that a revision in timings or a modification thereon would quite naturally affect other route operators. But, that alone, according to the Tribunal, was not a ground to direct reconsideration of the same. The Tribunal merely reserved WPC.No.30500/2014 : 2 :
the liberty of the petitioner to approach the RTA and also observed that the RTA if necessary, can issue modification.
3. In such circumstance, there can be no positive direction found in Ext.P1. The request of the petitioner to consider Ext.P2, on the basis of Ext.P1, cannot be countenanced, since no positive direction is issued in Ext.P1. It merely reserved the right of the petitioner to apply for modification.
Writ petition would stand dismissed.
Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN, jma Judge //true copy// P.A to Judge