IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2008 / 8TH MAGHA 1929 WA.No. 207 of 2008 -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.30604/2007 Dated 01/12/2007 & R.P. No.1268/2007 Dated 8.1.2008. .................... APPELLANT/REVIEW PETITIONER/4TH RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ K.K.SAJEEVAN, CHALIYAPARAMBA HOUSE, P.O.VENGAD, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS AND R1-3: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. K.P.MURALEEDHARAN, S/O.LATE K.K.NARAYANAN NAIR, KURUNTHAZHA PUTHEN VEEDU, CHELORA, P.O.MOWANCHERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. RAJESH RAMAN, S/O.LATE KUNHIRAMAN, "SAVERA", CHAKKARAKKAL, P.O.MOWANCHERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. (REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER K.KUNHIRAMAN, S/O.KELAPPAN, -DO-. 3. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KANNUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 4. THE SECRETARY, RTA, KANNUR. 5. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI. P. RAVINDRAN. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K. MEERA. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L. DATTU, CJ. & K.M. JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WRIT APPEAL No.207 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT H.L.DATTU, CJ, After considering the objections raised by the petitioners with regard to the settlement of timings of stage carriage of the fourth respondent, the Regional Transport Authority ('RTA' for short) had passed Ext.P3 order. 2. The fourth respondent, without impleading any one of the objectors, who had objected to the grant of permit in favour of the fourth respondent and also the settlement of timings, had challenged the same before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal ('STAT' for short), and the Tribunal has passed Ext.P5 order setting aside Ext.P3 order passed by the RTA and has directed to reconsider the matter. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the STAT, the objectors, who objected the settlement of timings of stage carriage of the fourth respondent, approached this court by filing W.P.(C) 30604 of 2007. 3. The learned Single Judge, being of the opinion that the STAT, at the instance of the fourth respondent, could not have passed Ext.P5 order without impleading the objectors, who had objected to the settlement of timings of the stage carriage of the fourth respondent, has set aside Ext.P5 order. 4. The fourth respondent thereafter had filed a review petition before the learned Single Judge and even that review petition is also rejected. Aggrieved by these two orders, the fourth respondent in the writ petition is before us in this Writ Appeal. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the learned Single Judge after setting aside Ext.P5 order passed by the Tribunal W.A. 207/2008. 2 solely on the ground that the fourth respondent had not impleaded the necessary and proper parties for effective disposal of the revision before the STAT, ought to have remanded the matter to the STAT with a specific direction to the fourth respondent to implead all the objectors who had objected to the settlement of timings of the stage carriage of the fourth respondent. 6. Sri. P.Ravindran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the writ petition/contesting respondents, tries to justify the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 7. In the instant case, the RTA had passed an order settling the timings of the stage carriage of the fourth respondent. Aggrieved by the said order, the fourth respondent had filed a revision petition before the STAT and while doing so, for the reasons best known, he had not impleaded any one of the objectors who had objected to the settlement of timings of the stage carriage of the fourth respondent. 8. The learned Single Judge, taking exception to Ext.P5 order passed by the STAT on the ground that the revision petitioner had not impleaded the objectors of the settlement of timings of the stage carriage of the fourth respondent, ought to have remanded the matter to the STAT with a specific direction to the fourth respondent to implead the objectors and thereafter should have directed the STAT to reconsider the matter and pass fresh orders in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned. Since that has not been done in the instant case, we cannot sustain the operative portion of the order passed by the learned Single Judge and also the order passed in the review petition. Accordingly, we modify the orders passed by the learned Single Judge as under: W.A. 207/2008. 3 Order (i) Writ Appeal is disposed of. (ii) The order passed by the STAT (Ext.P5) is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the STAT with a specific direction to restore the revision petition filed by the fourth respondent. (iii) The fourth respondent is directed to implead all the objectors, who had objected to the settlement of timings of the stage carriage of the fourth respondent and after such impleadment the STAT is directed to consider the revision petition filed by the fourth respondent and pass orders in accordance with law. (iv) All the contentions of both the parties are left open. Ordered accordingly. H.L. DATTU, CHIEF JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE sb.