IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 6TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 15TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 22923 of 2010(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- TESSY BENNY, W/O BENNY POOVATHINGAL HOUSE, NOORANI, PALAKKAD BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDY JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM-676 505 2. SURENDRAN, 30/147, SAKTHI NAGAR, MELMURI, PALAKKAD-676 514 ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR FOR R2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 22923 of 2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: true copy of proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 30.12.2008. P2: true copy of the order of the S.T.A.T, Ernakulam in MVARP No.137/2009 dated 22.7.2009. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: nil C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.22923 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the owner of stage carriage with registration No.KL-09/U 3799 plying on the route Menonpara-Kozhikode via Palakkad and Perinthalmanna with regular permit. Earlier, the petitioner has submitted an application for revision of timings and Ext.P1 is the order passed thereon by the first respondent. Ext.P1 was challenged before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in MVARP.No.137/2009 by the second respondent. Ext.P2 is the order passed in the said MVARP. The operative portion of Ext.P2 order reads as hereunder: “In the result, this revision petition is allowed and setting aside the impugned order, the matter is remanded to the 2nd respondent to consider the issue afresh, after hearing the petitioner as also the 3rd respondent and the similar other operators on the route.” Thus, it is obvious that the said revision petition was allowed and Ext.P1 was set aside by the Tribunal. The matter was, in fact, remanded to the W.P.(C) NO.22923/2010 2 second respondent viz., the first respondent herein to consider the request of the petitioner afresh after hearing the petitioner, second respondent herein as also other stage carriage operators on the route, on merits. The learned Government Pleader, upon instructions, submitted that the request of the petitioner herein for revision of time in respect of his vehicle was objected by the second respondent and two others. In the said circumstances, I find no illegality in Ext.P2 that calls for interference. When this matter was taken up today, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that the second respondent did not have any objection with respect to Ext.P1 as the second respondent is not in possession of any regular permit in respect of any vehicle plying on the route in question. This is recorded. However, in view of Ext.P2, the first respondent herein is bound to consider the issue afresh after issuing notice to the petitioner and other operators on the route. This shall be done, expeditiously. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.22923/2010 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.22923/2010 4