IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2009 / 14TH ASWINA 1931 WA.No. 2182 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.29523/2008 Dated 18/08/2009 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ P.NAZAR, PANAGAVIL HOUSE, PAINKANNOOR,KUTTIPPURAM. BY ADV.SMT.SUMATHI DANDAPANI (SR) SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD. 3. THE SECRETARY,REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,PALAKKAD. GP SRI.NOBLE MATHEW THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------------ WA 2182 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dated 6th October 2009 Judgment Balakrishnan Nair, J. The writ petitioner is the appellant. The Writ Petition was filed by him, challenging Ext.P5 decision of the RTA, Palakkad dated 25.06.2008, deciding to stand by its earlier decision dated 25.03.2008, revoking the regular permit granted to the appellant on the route Kuttippuram-Muthuthala and the variation granted to that permit subsequently. He also challenged Ext.P8 order of the STAT, affirming Ext.P5. The brief facts of the case are the following : 2. The appellant was granted a stage carriage permit on the route Kuttippuram-Muthuthala by the RTA, Palakkad by decision dated 11.06.2002. The permit was issued on 10.07.2002, subject to counter signature by the RTA, Malappuram. The permit was to be valid for a period of five years, i.e., upto 09.07.2007. The appellant did not apply for counter signature, but went on operating the vehicle on the above said route. The vehicle was intercepted by the Vehicle Inspector on 15.02.2006, while it was operating in Malappuram region, without getting the counter signature of the RTA, WA 2182/09 2 Malappuram. It appears, thereafter, the appellant applied for counter signature, but the RTA, Malappuram rejected his application by order dated 29.05.2006, on the ground that the proposed route violates Guruvayur-Kozhikode supplementation scheme. The said order was challenged before the STAT by filing MVAA No.343/06. The tribunal set aside the said order on 29.11.2006 and directed the RTA, Malappuram to consider whether the objectionable overlapping is within legal limits. In the meantime, the appellant filed an application for variation of his permit before the RTA, Palakkad. Pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court on 7.4.2006 in WP(C) No.9179/06, the RTA, Palakkad allowed the application filed by the appellant for variation of the permit, on 25.05.2006, subject to settlement of timings. The said variation was obtained without disclosing the fact that the original permit did not have the counter signature of the sister RTA. When there was delay in issuing the varied permit, the appellant approached this court, seeking appropriate directions and this Court, by judgment dated 17.08.2006 in WP(C) No.20927/06, directed the RTA, Palakkad to do the needful within 45 days. The RTA, Palakkad, when considered the matter, noticed the failure of the appellant to obtain counter signature of the sister RTA. WA 2182/09 3 Therefore, it passed an order dated 21.08.2006, recalling the original grant of permit dated 11.06.2002 as also the variation granted as per order dated 25.5.2006. The said order was challenged before the Appellate Tribunal by filing MVAA No.816/07. By Ext.P4 order , the matter was remanded to the RTA, Palakkad on the ground that the appellant was not given an opportunity of being heard. Later, after hearing the appellant, the RTA, Palakkad, by Ext.P5 decision, stuck to is original stand, to cancel the original permit as also the variation of permit granted to the appellant. The appellant filed Ext.P6 appeal against that order before the STAT. The said appeal was dismissed by Ext.P8 judgment. In the meantime, the term of the permit expired and therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he is now operating on the strength of temporary permits on the route, granted under S.87(1)(d) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. As mentioned earlier, challenging Exts.P5 and P8, the Writ Petition was filed. The learned Single Judge, after adverting to the contentions of both sides, declined to interfere with the orders of the authorities below. Hence this appeal, by the writ petitioner. 3. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant Smt.Sumathi Dandapani submitted that owing to inadvertence, the appellant did WA 2182/09 4 not apply for the counter signature and started operating the vehicle on the route. Therefore, the RTA should have allowed the appellant to compound the offence. It is also submitted that the RTA has no power to review its own order, unless the same is expressly granted. Therefore, the impugned order Ext.P5, as per which the RTA affirmed its earlier order, is illegal, it is submitted. 4. The appellant has been granted permit on the original route, subject to counter signature by the sister RTA. But, without obtaining the counter signature, the permit was used for operation of the stage carriage. Without disclosing the absence of counter signature, a motion was made for variation of the permit and the same was also obtained. If a vehicle is operated contrary to the conditions of the permit, the RTA has definitely the power to cancel that permit under S.86 of the Motor Vehicles Act. But, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the appellant was not given an opportunity to present his case before the cancellation of his permit. The said contention is plainly untenable, as the STAT has remitted the matter for giving an opportunity of being heard to the appellant and only after hearing him, Ext.P5 was passed. Whether the appellant should have been given an opportunity to compound the offence or not, is a matter WA 2182/09 5 within the discretion of the authority concerned. The vehicle was found to be operating without counter signature on 15.02.2006. Again, it was found operating without counter signature on 10.10.2007 through Malappuram region. So, having regard to the conduct of the appellant, if the RTA decided not to give him an opportunity to compound the offence, we think, the same cannot be described as an action without jurisdiction. In the result, we find no merit in the appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta WA 2182/09 6