IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 8TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 17TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 32997 of 2009(T) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ A. ABDUL KAREEM, S/O.KUNHIMOHAMMED HAJI, ALANGADAN HOUSE, KARAKUNNU, MANJERI. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR, SMT.G.CHITRA. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM. 2. ABDUL GAFOOR KHAN P.T., S/O.MOHAMMEDALI, PARATHODI HOUSE, ANAKKAYAM, MANJERI. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.M.A. ASIF. R2 BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/11/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C) NO. 32997/2009-T APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT ISSUING TIMINGS FOR THE PETITIONER'S SERVICE DATED 16/09/2006. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 06/09/2008. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE REVISION MEMORANDUM AS M.V.A.R.P. NO.435/2008 WITH EXHIBIT DATED 29/11/2008 FILED BEFORE THE S.T.A.T., ERNAKULAM. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE S.T.A.T., ERNAKULAM IN M.V.A.R.P. NO.435/2008 DATED 16/12/2008. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT ORDER BNO.11662/2009 DATED 17/08/2009 SIGNED ON 15/10/2009. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R2(a): COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WP(C) NO. 23386/2009 DATED 17/08/2009. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------- W.P.(C)No.32997 of 2009 ---------------------------- Dated 8th November, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner and the second respondent are stage carriage operators. The petitioner is operating on the route Areacode - Chembrassery with stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-10/R 1112. In respect of the said vehicle timings were settled as per Ext.P1. In respect of the second respondent, the first respondent convened a timing conference on 30.8.2008. The petitioner has also submitted his objections. Thereafter, timings in respect of the vehicle of the second respondent was settled, admittedly, after hearing the petitioner as well. In fact, while doing so, the timings settled in respect of the petitioner's vehicle were also modified. Ext.P2 is the order passed by the first respondent allotting or settling timings in respect of the vehicle of the second respondent. Dissatisfied with Ext.P2 the second respondent has preferred a revision petition as M.V.A.R.P.No.435 of 2008 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. Ext.P3 revision petition would reveal that the petitioner herein was not made a party to the said revision petition. Ext.P4 is the order passed on Ext.P3 revision petition by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. As per the same, the revision petition was allowed and the impugned order to the extent it settled the WP(C).No.32997/2009 2 timings in respect of the second respondent was set aside and the matter was remanded to the second respondent therein/the first respondent herein to re-settle the timings of the service of the petitioner/second respondent. True that, as per Ext.P4, the direction to re-settle the timings in respect of the vehicle of the second respondent was ordered to be effected after giving notice to all affected operators. Pursuant to Ext.P4, Ext.P5 order has been passed by the first respondent. It is challenging Exts.P4 and P5 that this writ petition has been filed. 2. Essentially, the contention is that the revision petition filed by the second respondent without the petitioner in the party array ought to have been rejected. Evidently, as per Ext.P2, while settling the timings in respect of the second respondent, the settled timings in respect of the petitioner in Ext.P1 were also modified. Therefore, the petitioner herein should have been impleaded as a party in the revision petition. However, the said aspect was not at all taken into consideration while passing Ext.P4. Ext.P3 revision petition is bad in law for non- joinder of necessary parties and on that ground it should not have been allowed. These are the contentions of the petitioner. 3. When this matter is taken up for consideration today, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent fairly submitted WP(C).No.32997/2009 3 that the matter could be remitted back to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal for fresh consideration of Ext.P3 revision petition. It is further submitted that the second respondent would also file a petition for impleading the petitioner herein in the said revision petition. This is also recorded. In view of the admitted position that while settling timings in respect of the vehicle of the second respondent the timings settled in respect of the petitioner as per Ext.P1 were also modified, any interference with Ext.P2 should have been effected only with notice to the petitioner. Needless to say that Ext.P3 was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. In the said circumstances, Ext.P4 calls for interference. Since Ext.P5 is passed in compliance with Ext.P4, it is also liable to be interfered with. For the foregoing reasons, Exts.P4 and P5 are set aside. The matter is remitted back to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam for fresh consideration of Ext.P3 revision petition. In view of the undertaking given by the second respondent herein that he would take appropriate steps for impleading the petitioner herein in the said revision petition, it is directed that Ext.P3 revision petition shall be taken up for fresh consideration only after appropriate steps from the part of the second respondent for impleading the petitioner herein as a party to the revision petition. When such a petition WP(C).No.32997/2009 4 is filed by the second respondent herein for impleading the petitioner herein as party to the revision petition, the Tribunal shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders and thereafter the Tribunal shall take up the revision petition for disposal. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS