IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 26TH JUNE 2009 / 5TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 17774 of 2009(N) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SMT. K.GEETHA, W/O. SUBRAMANIAN, KALLINGAVALAPPIL HOUSE, VENGINIKKARA, EDAPPAL. BY ADV. MR.I.DINESH MENON. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD. 3. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD. 4. SRI. P. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, GOVINDA BHAVAN, P.O.PERUMPARAMBA, EDAPPAL. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. M.R. SREELATHA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/06/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No. 17774 of 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 26th June,2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is an existing operator conducting service on the route Ponnani-Pattambi. Timings in relation to the petitioner’s service was settled on 12.5.2009, as evidenced by Exhibit-P4. But, later the timings were revised without notice to the petitioner or to any other operator in the next timing conference held on 4.6.2009, which according to the petitioner was without any circumstances providing for revision of her timings. Petitioner contends that Exhibit-P5 in so far as in relation to the petitioner’s services is clearly illegal. Petitioner has therefore challenged Exhibit-P5 in a statutory revision before the Tribunal as per Exhibit-P6 and also moved an application for stay as evidenced by Exhibit-P7. Notice has been issued on the stay petition as also the statutory revision petition. W.P ( C) No. 17774 of 2009 2 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the Tribunal's disability in passing an exparte order of stay before hearing the 4th respondent herein. This is on account of the fact that this Court has in Johnson Vs. Regional Transport Authority [ 2006(2) KLJ 301 considered Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act conferring the revisional power on the STAT as disabling the Tribunal from even granting an order of stay except after notice to the concerned person and after hearing. Accordingly, the Tribunal has only issued notice on the stay petition without passing any order of stay. Hence this writ petition seeking a direction to the Tribunal to pass orders on the stay petition and also for a direction to keep in abeyance Exhibit-P5 till the Tribunal passes orders on the stay petition. 3. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.Dinesh Menon and learned Government Pleader. 4. I am in agreement with the view expressed by this Court in Johnson Vs. Regional Transport Authority [ 2006(2) KLJ 301]. In the circumstances, I cannot find fault with the Tribunal having issued notice on the stay petition W.P ( C) No. 17774 of 2009 3 before considering the prayer for a stay of Exhibit-P5. But I take note of the contention raised by the petitioner that revision of the petitioner’s timings has been ordered even without notice to the petitioner, that to within a period of two weeks. Surely, the Tribunal shall take note of this fact while dealing with the application for stay. The Tribunal shall pass orders on Exhibit-P7, as early as possible, at any rate, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No. 17774 of 2009 4 W.P ( C) No. 17774 of 2009 5 W.P ( C) No. 17774 of 2009 6 W.P ( C) No. 17774 of 2009 7