IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2008 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 32552 of 2008(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.ABOOBACKER, S/O.MOIDEEN HAJI, MANNIYAKATH HOUSE, P.O.CHEMMANIYODE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ANIL SIVARAMAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. T.P.MOHAMMEDKUTTY, NATTUMPURATH HOUSE, PULAMNTHOL, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE SECRTARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM. 3. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON FOR R1 GP SMT.SUDHA DEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/12/2008, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 26392 OF 2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C)s.32552/2008 & 26392/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 10th day of December, 2008 JUDGMENT Parties in both the writ petitions are common. Therefore, I have taken up the same for disposal by consent of parties. Disposal of Writ Petition No.32552/2008 will govern the other writ petition also. 2. First respondent, who is the holder of a regular permit on the route Manjeri-Ottappalam, submitted an application for variation of his permit. It seems that variation was ultimately granted by the STAT, but subject to settlement of timings. Timings were settled by the Secretary, RTA. This was challenged in MVARP No. 176 & 177 of 2008, at the instance of the petitioner and another operator, by Ext.P3 order. Paragraph 2, 3 and 4 of Ext.P3 read as follows:- Although the notice was served on the 3rd respondent in both these revision petitioners, he did not file W.P.(C).s. 32552 & 26392/2008 2 any objection. Going by the averments in the revision petitions, it cannot be said that the grievances of the petitioners are unreal or imaginary. In such circumstances, it appears to me that the impugned order is liable to be set aside, thereby remanding the matter to the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration in accordance with law. In the result, these revision petitions are allowed to the extent of setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter to the 2nd respondent to reconsider the impugned timings of the 3rd respondent in accordance with rules and after giving an opportunity to all concerned of being heard in the matter. 3. Going by Ext.P3 order, the operator namely the first respondent was entitled to operate service on the timings which were prevailing prior to the revision sanctioned by the RTA. That was the subject matter of the revision before the STAT. But, on the premise that W.P.(C).s. 32552 & 26392/2008 3 he was, in spite of Ext.P3 order, operating on the varied permit and on the subsequent timings settled in consequence of the varied permit, writ petition No.26392/2008 was filed seeking appropriate directions to the Regional Transport Authority to require the first respondent not to operate the stage carriage on the varied route on the strength of the timings which were unsettled by Ext.P3 order. 3. It seems that the first respondent had, during the pendency of writ petition No.26392/2008, moved an application before the STAT, Ext.P6, praying for a clarification that, pending fresh orders by the Secretary, RTA, pursuant to Ext.P3 order, he may be permitted to operate on the basis of timings settled on 11.3.2008. By Ext.P7 order, STAT allowed the said application. This has been challenged in Writ Petition No.32552/2008. 4. I heard Mr.P.Ravindran, learned senior counsel for W.P.(C).s. 32552 & 26392/2008 4 the petitioner and Mr.Dinesh Menon, learned counsel for the first respondent. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner is correct in submitting that Ext.P6 application does not ex facie show any statutory provision enabling such an application. Learned counsel for the first respondent submits that it is an application for review. If that be so, it would be subject to the time frame mentioned in that regard. 6. In such circumstances, it would have been better that STAT merely required the Secretary, RTA, to pass a fresh order pursuant to the remand within a time frame. For all these reasons, I am of the view that Ext.P7 is unsustainable. Accordingly, the same is set aside. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, Secretary, RTA, shall proceed to settle the timings in relation to the varied permit sanctioned in favour of the first respondent, as early as possible, at any rate, within W.P.(C).s. 32552 & 26392/2008 5 six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In circumstances where Ext.P7 order passed by the STAT has been set aside, Ext.P5 also cannot have any independent existence. Subject to the above, writ petition No. 32552/2008 is disposed of. In view of the order passed in Writ Petition No.32552/2008, no further directions are necessary in Writ Petition No.26392/2008. Accordingly the same is closed. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs