IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2009 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 8689 of 2009(E) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.SUBAIR, S/O.KUNJUMUHAMMED, VADAKKETHIL HOUSE, K.N.BAZAR, KOTTAKKAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ANIL SIVARAMAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. SECRETARY, RTA, MALAPPURAM. 3. V.HAMZA, S/O.MUHAMMED, VAKATHODI HOUSE, THANIPARA, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. ABDUL AZEEZ, S/O.KUNHIMUHAMMED, KATTIPARUTHI HOUSE, VANIYAMBALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 5. P.UNEEN, S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN MUSLIAR, POOTTAYIL HOUSE, P.O.KARUVARAKUND, MALAPPURAM. 6. N.HAMSA, NEECHIYIL HOUSE, MANATHUMANGALAM, PERINTHALMANNA. ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR FOR R3 GP SMT.M.R.SREELATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 8689 of 2009 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF the RTA DATED 7.8.2007 EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE RTA DATED 16.11.2007 EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.NO.1837/08 DATED 24.3.08 EXT.P4- TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE RTA, DATED 4.11.08 EXT.P5- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE STAT IN MVARP NO.414/08 DATED 30.1.2009 EXT.P6- TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXT.P7- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE STAT IN REVIEW PETITION NO.3/09 IN MVARP 414/08 DATED 4.3.09 EXT.P8- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C). 32552/08 DATED 10.12.08. (TRUE COPY) P.A TO JUDGE V.GIRI, J ....................... W.P.(C).8689/2009 ....................... Dated this the 25th day of May, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner a regular stage carriage operator operating on the route Kottakkal - Anchalangadi applied for variation of his permit by including some additional trips with slight change in timings and by rearrangement of the existing timings. By Ext.P1 his application was allowed. Pursuant to Ext.P1, Secretary, RTA endorsed the variation and issued a set of timings, under Ext.P2. Apparently Ext.P2 order was issued without notice to the existing operators. They approached this Court in Writ Petition No.1837/2008 contending that they have objection to the varied set of timings and accordingly by Ext.P3 judgment, the Secretary, RTA was directed to consider their objections to Ext.P2. This was done and by Ext.P4 order, the timings were resettled. But, at the same time according to the petitioner, this was without notice to the petitioner and therefore, he approached the STAT in W.P.(C).8689/2009 2 M.V.A.R.P. 414/08. Same was allowed as per Ext.P5 judgment. Operative portion of the same reads as follows:- “In the result, this revision petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the second respondent is directed to convene a timing conference in accordance with the direction of the Honourable High Court dated 24.3.2008 in W.P.(C).1837/08 within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and pass appropriate orders.” 2. As could be seen from the above, Tribunal had after setting aside Ext.P4 directed the Secretary, RTA, to convene a fresh timing conference and reset the variation. Tribunal should have in the normal course, issued a direction as regards the status to be maintained during the interrugnum. But this was not done and apparently, this resulted in certain amount of chaos because the petitioner started operating on the set of timings ordered under Ext.P2 on the premise that Ext.P4 has been W.P.(C).8689/2009 3 set aside by the Tribunal. This resulted in a Review Petition being filed before the STAT by the contesting respondents herein, and the STAT, by Ext.P7 order, felt that it should have also issued a direction as to the status quo to be maintained till there is a resettlement of timings pursuant to Ext.P5 order. Accordingly, Ext.P7 order was passed. Operative portion of the same reads as follows:- “In the result, this review petition is allowed to the extent of making it clear that the status quo as on 30.1.2009 must continue till resettlement of timings as per the order of this tribunal in M.V.A.R.P.414/09. it is further made clear that the secretary, R.T.A. shall have to convene the timing conference and re-settle the timings within the time frame as ordered by this tribunal in the order dated 30.1.2009.” 3. This has been challenged in the writ petition. I heard learned counsel on both sides. Counter W.P.(C).8689/2009 4 affidavit has been filed by the third respondent. 4. It is contended that there is no substantive conferment of the power of review on the appellate Tribunal. The only power of review available is under Rule 21 of the STAT Rules which reads as follows:- Review - (1).The Tribunal shall, either suo motu or on application of party, have the power to review the final order passed by it, within thirty days from the date of such order, for correcting any mistake or error therein. 5. It is contended that this is only for correcting a mistake and therefore, the review should not have been entertained. On the other hand it is contended by the respondents that what the Tribunal has done is only correcting a lacunae in Ext.P5 to the extent to which Tribunal did not specify the status to be maintained by the parties pending a fresh timing conference. W.P.(C).8689/2009 5 6. The petitioner has been operating on an existing permit and there was no dispute regarding the timings relatable to the existing permit. The problem arose when he sought for variation. Variation was granted and the respondents also have no objection to the variation. But according to them whenever there is a variation, and especially so when additional trips are permitted, then timings with regard to the additional trips will have to be set in an appropriate timing conference. This was not done under Ext.P2 and it was rectified when Ext.P4 order was passed. But Ext.P4 was set aside under Ext.P5 by the Tribunal finding that the petitioner did not have notice regarding the timings settled under Ext.P4. Had the Tribunal, while passing Ext.P5 order also issued a direction regarding the status to be maintained pending fresh timing conference, then possibly there would not have been any dispute. This the Tribunal realized and hence passed Ext.P7 order presumably on the basis that Tribunal felt that it had committed an error. I do not find any illegality in the action W.P.(C).8689/2009 6 taken by the Tribunal in this regard. 7. Further, I find it difficult to interfere with Ext.P7 because this would actually result in the resuscitation of Ext.P2. It had undergone a change later. All the existing operators also got an opportunity to file objections to the revised timings proposed by the petitioner on the varied permit. In these circumstances, a direction by the Tribunal to maintain the status quo as on 30.1.09 the date of Ext.P5 judgment cannot be considered as illegal as to warrant interference by this Court. I find no merit in the writ petition and hence the same is dismissed. But it is imperative that a fresh timing conference as directed in Ext.P5 be convened at the earliest, by the Secretary, RTA. This shall be done within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs