IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 4152 of 2010. Decided on: 5th March, 2011. Arvind Kumar. …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and another.. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. For the petitioner : Mr. Harish Dod, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. The petitioner challenges Annexure P-14, order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in appeal No.1 of 2010 titled as Arvind Kumar vs. Regional Transport Authority, Chamba. That appeal was filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the decision of the RTA, Chamba dated 2.1.2010 in the matter of fixation of time schedule. It is seen from the impugned order that the State Transport Appellate Tribunal has not gone into the appeal on merits on the ground that the matter was considered by this Court in CWP No. 175 of 2010 leading to judgment dated 25.2.2010 (Annexure P-11). The judgment reads as follows: “Petitioner approached this Court with the grievance that third respondent does not comply with the time schedule fixed in the RTA meeting on 2.1.2010. According to the third respondent, no schedule was 2 fixed and in any case it has not been intimated to him. Second respondent is directed to communicate third respondent the time schedule fixed for plying his vehicle and the second respondent will also ensure that third respondent complies the time schedule fixed. The petition stands disposed of, as above.” 2. It is obvious from a bare reading of the judgment that this Court only directed the second respondent to communicate the decision taken in the RTA meeting held on 2.1.2010. There is also an observation that the second respondent will ensure that whether the third respondent complies the time schedule fixed. That does not mean that the aggrieved person is deprived of his statutory right of appeal before the Tribunal. The direction by this Court is subject to the decision in the appeal if pursued by the aggrieved person. That observation has to be understood in the light of the statutory right of the aggrieved person to pursue the grievance if any against the decision dated 2.1.2010 of the RTA, Chamba. The petitioner is aggrieved by the decision and he had filed Appeal No.1 of 2010 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The observation of this Court should not stand in the way of the appeal being decided on merits. Therefore, we set aside the decision, Annexure P-14 of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.1 of 2010, titled as Arvind Kumar vs. Regional Transport Authority, Chamba with a direction to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal to decide the appeal on merits after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the affected party, if any. The needful, as above, shall 3 be done within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment by the petitioner before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. 3. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. Dasti copy. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 5th March, 2011. (Justice Kuldip Singh), (tr) Judge.