JUDGMENT : VIJU ABRAHAM, J. Petitioners have approached this Court challenging Ext.P4 decision taken by the Joint Regional Transport Officer. 2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: Petitioners are existing stage carriage operators conducting their services on the basis of permits issued by the 2 nd respondent, and they are aggrieved by the act of the authorities in insisting that all the stage carriages shall enter Pulamanthol Bus Stand. The grievance raised by the petitioners is that the bus stand is situated in 18 cents of land, and there is no separate ingress and egress provided in the bus stand. Though the same is termed as a bus stand, it is actually used as a parking place for vehicles owned by the people who are coming to the shops situated in the bus stand. Since there is no separate provision for ingress and egress, and on account of the parking of other vehicles, the stage carriages are not in a position to enter the bus stand. Further, it is submitted that due to the present arrangement made as per Ext.P4 to enter into the bus stand, they have to operate an additional 2.5 kms. Thereupon, they made representations before the authorities. As no action was taken, they approached this Court, filing WP(C) No.34100 of 2022, wherein a direction was issued to the 1 st respondent Regional Transport Authority, to pass appropriate orders thereon on the request made by the petitioners. Petitioners would submit that no action has been taken by the Regional Transport Authority, but Ext.P4 communication has been issued directing the petitioners to enter the bus stand. It is aggrieved by the same that the present writ petition has been filed. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit on the basis of Section 227 of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act , 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act, 1994’) that before opening public landing places, halting places, cart stands, previous sanction from the Regional Transport Authority is to be obtained. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit on the basis of Section 227 of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act , 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act, 1994’) that before opening public landing places, halting places, cart stands, previous sanction from the Regional Transport Authority is to be obtained. It is further contended that Rule 344 of Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules , 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules, 1989’) mandates that the Regional Transport Authority shall in consultation with the concerned authorities of any Corporation, Municipality or Panchayat, the Executive Engineer and the Superintendent of Police of the District, determine the location of bus stands, where from stage carriages start or terminate service. Petitioners would submit that the opening of the bus stand is in clear violation of the above-quoted provisions. 4. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 7 and 8, wherein it is stated that the company of which the 7th respondent is the Managing Director, is in ownership of 1 acre and 61.5 cents of land in R.S. No.34/7 of Pulamanthole Village. The 5 th respondent Panchayat, invited tenders for the construction of a bus stand complex on BOT basis, and the company offered to construct a bus stand complex in 52 cents of land out of 1 acre 61.5 cents of land. The 1st respondent Regional Transport Authority, vide Ext R7(e) decision dated 14.10.2003 considered the resolution of the 5th respondent Panchayat for construction of the bus stand cum shopping complex and granted permission after obtaining Ext.R7(c) no objection from the Public Works Department and Ext.R7(d) no objection certificate from the District Police. Thereafter, the 5th respondent Panchayat as per Resolution Nos.1, 2(10) dated 28.02.2004, resolved to grant permission to the Company to construct the bus stand complex. As per the said resolution, the Company shall construct comfort station, police aid post, cloak room, waiting room and a bus stand with concrete/tar runway at its expense. Pursuant to the same, the Government by Ext.R7(f) order directed the Secretary of the 5 th respondent to coordinate with ICICM Kinfra regarding the construction of the bus stand complex on BOT basis, and permission as per the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilization Order was issued by the Revenue Division Officer as per Ext.R7(g). Later, Ext.R7(h) agreement was executed between the company and the 5 th respondent Panchayat. Later, Ext.R7(h) agreement was executed between the company and the 5 th respondent Panchayat. Pursuant to the same, the bus stand complex was constructed and completed on 27.05.2007. After the same, the company surrendered the original of the title deed No.5194 of 2003 in respect of 52 cents of land to the respondent Panchayat. 5. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the contention of the petitioners that no action has been taken pursuant to Ext.P3 judgment is not correct and that in the Regional Transport Authority meeting held on 14.02.2023 this issue has been discussed as item No.6 wherein on finding that the bus stand Pulamanthole is approved by the Regional Transport Authority on 14.10.2003, directed the Secreatry of the Regional Transport Authority to take steps to ensure that all stage carriages are making use of the above bus stand by implementing Ext.P4 decision since as per Rule 207 of the Rules, 1989, every stage carriage shall make use of the stand. On the basis of the same, the learned Government Pleader would submit that the direction in Ext P3 judgment has been duly complied with. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that as per Section 227 of the Act, 1994, before the village panchayat decides to open public landing places, halting places, cart stands (including stands for animals and vehicles of any description), previous sanction of the Regional Transport Authority shall be obtained. On the basis of the same, it is contended that Ext. R7(e) permission is only for the construction of a bus stand and further permission is to be obtained from the Regional Transport Authority before opening a bus stand after construction as mandated as per Section 227 of the Act 1994, which reads as follows: “227. Public landing places and cart-stands, etc. R7(e) permission is only for the construction of a bus stand and further permission is to be obtained from the Regional Transport Authority before opening a bus stand after construction as mandated as per Section 227 of the Act 1994, which reads as follows: “227. Public landing places and cart-stands, etc. - Subjects to such rules as may be prescribed, the village panchayat may - (a) provide public landing places, halting places and cart-stands (including stands for animals and vehicles of any description) and levy fees for their use; and (b) Where any such place or stand has been provided, prohibit the use for the same purpose by any person, within such distance, thereof, any public place or the side of any public road as the panchayat may, subject to the control of the Regional Transport Authority, specify: Provided that the previous sanction of the Regional transport Authority shall be obtained before any stand or halting place for motor vehicles is opened.” (underline supplied) The petitioners rely on the judgment in P.T. Abdul Rahaman v. The Tribunal and Others , 2006 KHC 688 , to contend that previous sanction of the Regional Transport Authority has to be obtained before opening a bus stand. I am unable to accept the said contention raised by the petitioners that a further permission is required for the opening of the bus stand. In P.T. Abdul Rahaman ’s case cited supra, this Court upheld the power of the local authority to start a bus stand subject to the conditions in Section 227 of the Act 1994, which mandates that previous sanction of the Regional Transport Authority shall be obtained before any stand or halting place for motor vehicle is opened. The Court further held that no construction of any sort can be done on the basis of the decision of the panchayat nor any other activities could be carried out except after obtaining sanction from the Regional Transport Authority. A perusal of Ext.R7(e) decision of the Regional Transport Authority dated 14.10.2003, reveals that the said authority has considered the request of the 5th respondent panchayat based on its resolution seeking permission for the construction of a bus stand and the same was granted by the Regional Transport Authority. A perusal of Ext.R7(e) decision of the Regional Transport Authority dated 14.10.2003, reveals that the said authority has considered the request of the 5th respondent panchayat based on its resolution seeking permission for the construction of a bus stand and the same was granted by the Regional Transport Authority. It is also to be seen that the said permission was granted after obtaining necessary consent from the Executive Engineer, PWD, as well as the Superintendent of Police, Malappuram. The only mandate of Section 227 of the Act, 1994 is that the prior sanction of the Regional Transport Authority is to be obtained before the opening of a bus stand, which has already been obtained as evident from Ext.R7(e). The provisions of the Act, 1994 or the Kerala Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or Rules, 1989 do not contemplate a further permission to be obtained from the Regional Transport Authority for opening the bus stand after the construction is completed. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that a further permission to open the bus stand is to be obtained from the Regional Transport Authority cannot be accepted. 7. The subsequent decision of the Regional Transport Authority in its meeting held on 14.02.2023 has made it clear that the bus stand at Pulamanthole is approved by the authority as per Ext.R7(e) and as per Rule 207 of the Rules 1989, every stage carriage is bound to use the said bus stand and directed to take steps to implement Ext.P4 decision. This Court in Damodaran v. District Collector , 1993 KHC 185, with specific reference to Rule 207 of the Rules 1989, has held that as long as approval of the bus stand accorded by the Regional Transport Authority subsists, every stage carriage operator is obliged to make use of that bus stand. In view of the above, the petitioners are bound to make use of the bus stand since the same has been constructed with the approval of the Regional Transport Authority. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant any of the reliefs sought in this writ petition. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the subsequent decision of the Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram, in its meeting held on 14.02.2023, is not in accordance with the directions in Ext.P3 judgment. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant any of the reliefs sought in this writ petition. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the subsequent decision of the Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram, in its meeting held on 14.02.2023, is not in accordance with the directions in Ext.P3 judgment. If the petitioners have any such grievance, it is for them to work out their remedy in appropriate proceedings. There will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to issue a copy of the proceedings of the meeting of the Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram, held on 14.02.2023 and the decision taken as Item No.6, if the same is not already forwarded to the petitioners. Leaving open such right of the petitioners, the above writ petition is dismissed.