IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 21ST MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 599 of 2009(U) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- A.C. BABURAJAN, ANIYACHALIL HOUSE, KOKKALLUR P.O., BALUSSERY, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, VADAKARA. 3. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, VADAKARA. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 599 OF 2009 (U) ==================== Dated this the 10th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Exts.P1 and P3, the proceedings of the 2nd respondent as confirmed by the STAT. As can be seen from Ext.P1 itself, following the judgment of the STAT in MVAA No.877/07, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner for reconsideration of the action taken against the petitioner under Rule 152 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules. On the basis that the petitioner did not respond to the show cause notice, without going further into the matter, the permit was ordered to be cancelled as per Ext.P1. The cancellation of the permit was confirmed by the STAT as per Ext.P3 judgment in MVAA No.608/08. That judgment also shows that the petitioner did not show cause against the cancellation of the permit in response to the notice issued by the 2nd respondent. 2. When this writ petition came up for admission, the counsel for the petitioner asserted that reply to the show cause notice was filed, and hence the case was adjourned with a direction to the learned Government Pleader to obtain instructions in the matter. 3. Today, on instructions, the learned Government Pleader WPC 599/09 :2 : submits that Ext.P1 decision was taken by the 2nd respondent on 5/8/08 and that the petitioner's objection to the show cause notice was received by the 2nd respondent on 4/8/08. 4. If this be the factual position, the premise on which both the 2nd respondent and the STAT have proceeded that the petitioner had not responded to the show cause notice is factually erroneous. Thus the orders are rendered without considering the objections raised by the petitioner against the show cause notice for cancellation of his permit deserves to be invalidated for that reason and I do so. The 2nd respondent is directed to reconsider the matter. This shall be done with notice to the petitioner and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 8 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp