IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2011 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 3729 of 2011(M) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHIBUKUMAR, BABY VILASAM, MAYYANAD CHERRY, MAYYAND VILALGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI.T.SHAJI, BABY VILASAM, MAYYANADU VILALGE, MAYYANAD VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRTARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOLLAM. 2. DEEPESH U.P.NIVAS, PARIPPALLY P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR FOR R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BASANT BALAJI. FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.3729 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a stage carriage operator operating a stage carriage on the route Thirumukku-Varkala on the strength of a regular permit. He is operating the said service in terms of the time schedule fixed as per Ext.P1 way back in the year 2003. As per the said time schedule the petitioner's stage carriage leaves Parippally to Paravoor at 9.05 a.m. and Paravoor to Parippally at 4.55 p.m. The second respondent is another stage carriage operator operating a service on the route Kalluvathikkal ESI Hospital Junction – Paravoor Railway Station. As per the time schedule allotted to the second respondent, his stage carriage leaves Parippally to Paravoor at 8.55 a.m. and Paravoor to Parippally at 4.45 p.m. It appears the second respondent submitted Ext.P2 petition before the first respondent contending that as a result of two other stage carriage operators surrendering their permits, vacant slots are available at 9.00 a.m. and 4.45 p.m. and requested the first respondent to revise the time schedule allotted to him and to allot the vacant time schedule to him. The first respondent considered the said application and rejected it by Ext.P4 order dated 20.3.2010. Aggrieved thereby, the second respondent filed a revision petition before the State Transport W.P.(C) No.3729 of 2011 2 Appellate Tribunal. By Ext.P6 order passed on 27.12.2010, the appellate tribunal set aside Ext.P4 and directed the first respondent to reconsider Ext.P2 petition after affording the petitioner and other stage carriage operators who would be affected thereby an opportunity of being heard. Ext.P6 is under challenge in this writ petition. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that before Ext.P6 order was passed, he was not put on notice or heard and that the State Transport Appellate Tribunal ought to have enquired into the genuineness of the claim made by the petitioner in Ext.P2 before interfering with Ext.P4. 2. I heard Sri.O.D.Sivadas, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Basant Balaji, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent and Sri.K.V.Gopinathan Nair, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. The second respondent has in Ext.P2 stated that the stage carriage operator who was operating a stage carriage on the route Paravoor – Kottarakkara which was passing through Parippally at 9.00 a.m. had surrendered his permit and therefore the said slot is now lying vacant. It is on this ground that the second respondent requested that the said time schedule may be allotted to him in respect of the morning trip from W.P.(C) No.3729 of 2011 3 Parippally to Paravoor. It is relevant to note that as per the existing time schedule, the second respondent's stage carriage leaves Parippally to Paravoor at 8.55 a.m. Alternatively, he had requested that the departure time may be fixed either at 8.57 a.m. of at 8.58 a.m. so that the passengers will not be put to inconvenience. Likewise, the second respondent has pointed out in Ext.P2 that yet another stage carriage operator operating a service on the route Varkala-Chathannoor which used to depart from Paravoor at 4.40 p.m. has surrendered his permit and therefore that vacant slot is available and that the said vacant slot may be allotted to him. The said requests were rejected by the Regional Transport Authority, Kollam by Ext.P4 order on the ground that if the change sought by the second respondent for the morning trip is granted, it will adversely affect the passengers. As regards the evening trip, it was held that there was no vacant slot as claimed by the second respondent. The second respondent challenged the said order by filing Ext.P5 revision petition mainly on the ground that before it was passed, he was not put on notice or heard. He also contended that in view of the adverse report relied on by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, he ought to have given an opportunity of being heard. By Ext.P6 order W.P.(C) No.3729 of 2011 4 which is impugned in this writ petition, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal accepted the said contention, set aside Ext.P4 and directed the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority to reconsider Ext.P2. 3. A reading of Ext.P6 order indicates that Ext.P4 order was set aside mainly on the ground that before it was passed, the second respondent, the revision petitioner in Ext.P5 revision petition was not given an opportunity of being heard. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal held that as the revision petitioner/the second respondent herein was not afforded an opportunity of being heard before Ext.P4 order was passed, he could not substantiate the contentions which he had set out in Ext.P2 or explain the observations and findings in the reports referred to in Ext.P4. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that Ext.P6 order does not merit any interference. Even if the petitioner herein had been joined as a party to the revision petition, in the light of the admitted fact that before Ext.P4 order adverse to the second respondent was passed, the second respondent was not put on notice or heard, no conclusion other than the one set out in Ext.P6 could have been arrived at. I am therefore of the opinion that the mere failure to implead the petitioner herein as a party to Ext.P6 order does not vitiate Ext.P6. Further, W.P.(C) No.3729 of 2011 5 pursuant to Ext.P6, the first respondent necessarily have to hold a timing conference. At that stage he will have to issue notice to the petitioner and other stage carriage operators. Such a direction is also found in Ext.P6. The petitioner can at that stage object to the request made by the second respondent in Ext.P2. I am therefore of the view that no prejudice what so ever has been caused to the petitioner by the failure of the second respondent to implead him in Ext.P5 revision petition or of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal to issue notice to him before passing final orders. 4. For the reasons stated above, I hold that there is no merit in this writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to object to the request made by the second respondent in Ext.P2 as and when it is taken up for consideration by the first respondent. All the contentions raised by the petitioner and the second respondent in this writ petition are kept open. In view of the fact that more than 5 months have passed after Ext.P6 order was passed, the first respondent shall pass appropriate orders in Ext.P2 petition expeditiously and in any event within one month from the date on which the second respondent W.P.(C) No.3729 of 2011 6 produces a copy of this judgment before the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Kollam. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.