Judgment :- K. Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner was having a regular permit on the route Mukkom-Punnakal-Kodenchery, granted in respect of his vehicle, KL-10/7884. He submitted an application for variation of the permit, by granting extension of one trip from Kodenchery to Chempukadavu. The said application for variation was rejected by the R.T.A. Kozhikode,at its meeting held on 7.8.2002. He moved the S.T.A.T. by filing M.V.A.A. No.592/02, The said appeal was allowed, by Ext.P2 judgment, directing the R.T.A. to grant the variation, as prayed for. The R.T.A considered the matter and rejected it again, by Ext.P3. This Writ Petition is filed challenging Ext.P3. 2. I heard the learned Government Pleader for the respondents also. Ext.Pl is the decision of the R.T. A dated 7.8.2002 rejecting the application for variation of the permit. The said decision reads as follows: "Heard. The variation of permit will adversely affect the travelling public and the present route. Rejected." The said decision was reversed by the S.T.A.T. and the operative portion of the judgement of the S.T.A.T. reads as follows: "In the result: (1) The order under challenge is set aside. (2) The first respondent R.T. A, is directed to grant variation as prayed for, in accordance with law, within 45 days of receipt of a copy of this judgment and the records." The R.T.A. which subsequently met on 18.5.2004 took the following decision: "Heard. Perused the judgment in M.V.A.A. No.592/02 of the Hon'ble S.T.A.T. This authority is satisfied that the variation of permit sought for, will adversely affect the traveling public. Hence rejected." The R.T.A. thinks that it is a law unto itself and it need not respect the order of the S.T.A.T. The R.T.A. is an inferior authority and it is absolutely bound by the directions issued by the S.T.A.T. In the hierarchial 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. Only in that manner, the judicial system can function (see Assistant Collector of Central Excise v. Dunlop India Ltd. ((1985) 1 SCC 260). 3. Ext. P3 decision of the R.T.A. is plainly perverse. Men, in their senses, will never take such a decision. The R.T.A. has ignored the decision of the Appellate Authority and stuck to its original stand. The same cannot be tolerated. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed with compensatory costs. 3. Ext. P3 decision of the R.T.A. is plainly perverse. Men, in their senses, will never take such a decision. The R.T.A. has ignored the decision of the Appellate Authority and stuck to its original stand. The same cannot be tolerated. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed with compensatory costs. The R.T.A. shall grant the permit as directed by the S.T.A.T., within one month. The cost is fixed as Rs. 15,0007- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) which shall be paid by the State Government. There after, the same shall be recovered from the members of the R.T.A., who took Ext.P3 decision, within three months.