IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT :- THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2008 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1930 WA.No. 294 of 2008 --------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.34699/2007 Dated 23/11/2007 .................... APPELLANT:PETITIONER IN WPC:- ------------------------------------------------ JOBY JACOB, NAMBUDAKATH HOUSE, MOONNILAVU, MANCOMBU, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.A.INEES RESPONDENTS:RESPONDENTS IN WPC:- --------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM. 2. SRI.BABY AUGUSTINE, MADAKKAL HOUSE, PRAVITHANAM, PALAI, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.M.JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.A.No.294 of 2008-E ------------------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 25th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT K.M.Joseph, J. The appellant is the writ petitioner. The prayers sought for in the petition reads as follows: “i). to call for the records leading to Exhibits P2 and P4 and quash them by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order : and ii). to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Ist respondent to revise the departure time from Kaloor at 6.10 P.M. issued to the 2nd respondent's stage carriage as KL-35/4387 as per Exhibit P2, on the route Palai--Kaloor bus stand, by holding a timing conference with notice to all affected parties urgently.” (2). The appellant is an existing stage carriage operator on regular permit. Ext.P1 is the timings issued to the petitioner's stage carriage. The second respondent was granted a new permit on the route Palai-Ernakulam Kaloor bus stand via. Koothattukulam and Nadakkavu. He was issued Ext.P2 timings. The appellant objected to the timings granted to the 2nd respondent by filing Ext.P3 revision petition before the Tribunal. That revision petition came to be dismissed by Ext.P4 order. The Tribunal has rejected the revision petition filed by the petitioner finding that there is no W.A.294/2008 -2- violation of principles of natural justice or non-observance of any statutory requirement. (3). Feeling aggrieved by Exts.P2 and P4, the appellant has filed the writ petition. The learned Single Judge took the view that no case was made out for interference as the Tribunal found that there was no violation of natural justice or non-observance of any statutory requirement. (4). We heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant, learned Government Pleader and also learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties to the lis, the matter is taken up for final hearing. (5). The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the appellant was aggrieved by Ext.P2 timings. It is accordingly the statutory revision was filed. When the revision was filed it was incumbent upon the Tribunal to look into the complaint of the appellant as regards the timings and it will not suffice for the Tribunal to merely state that there was no violation of principles of natural justice or non-observance of any statutory requirement. It is submitted that, a litigant's valuable right to agitate the grievance before the Tribunal created by Statute is affected. It is contended that, the view taken by the Tribunal was adopted by the learned Single Judge also when the complaint regarding non-consideration of the matter on merit by the Tribunal was brought to his notice. We find considerable merit in the complaint canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant against Ext.P4 and the judgment of the learned Single Judge. We feel that it will not suffice merely to reject the statutory revision filed by the appellant by observing that W.A.294/2008 -3- there was no violation of principles of natural justice or non-observance of any statutory requirement. It is incumbent upon the Tribunal to consider the complaint of the parties on merits and decide the matter in accordance with law. (6). In such circumstances, we are inclined to allow the appeal. Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed and Ext.P4 stands quashed. The Tribunal will take up Ext.P3 revision filed by the appellant and take a decision on it, in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of being heard to the appellant and the second respondent. A decision in this regard shall be taken within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE MS