IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 29TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 3234 of 2010(D) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------------- P.S. AROMAL, AROMAL NIVAS, MADTHARA. P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. MR.O.D.SIVADAS. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOLLAM. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOLLAM. 3. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/02/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO.3234 OF 2010 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a Stage Carriage operator conducting service on the route Madathara-Odanavattam thereby extending his route from Valakam to Odanavattam as per a regular permit valid till 9.12.2012. The petitioner applied for variation of condition of his permit and the RTA considered the matter and granted a variation with a condition that the proposed trip from Madathara at 5.45 pm shall be upto Valakam. According to the petitioner, the above condition was imposed without any notice and without hearing him. It is also contended that the said variation was not one that was sought by him. Therefore, the petitioner challenged the proceedings of the second respondent before the third respondent. The third respondent also confirmed the order of the second respondent. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the said orders. 2. The Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that the RTA is clothed with sufficient powers to impose a condition as Wpc 3234/2010 2 stipulated in the present order under Section 72 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is also submitted that there were objections from the members of the travelling public and that it was in deference to the said objections that the condition was imposed. However, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was not heard on the question as to whether such a condition was to be imposed while granting variation of his permit as sought for by him. Since the condition was imposed on the petitioner without hearing him, I feel that the petitioner is entitled to an opportunity of being heard. 3. In the above circumstances, it is necessary that the second respondent is directed to consider the matter afresh. Ext.P3 order of the second respondent to the extent it imposes a condition on the petitioner that was not sought for by him is set aside and the authority is directed to consider the matter afresh untrammelled by the observations in Ext.P4 order of the STAT after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and other objectors. Such orders shall be passed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE lgk