IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2010 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 31281 of 2010(I) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. PALAKKAD DISTRICT PRIVATE BUS OPERATORS' ASSOCIATION, MUNICIPAL BUS STAND BUILDING, R.S.ROAD, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, K.RAVINDRAKUMAR. 2. K.RAVINDARKUMAR, RAM NIVAS, EDAYAR STREET, PALAKKAD-01. BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD, PIN 678001. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD, PIN 678001. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, RANI P. DIOTHIMA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 31281 of 2010(I) APPENDIX PETITIIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 10.09.2007. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 17.09.2007. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 07.11.2007 ADDRESSED TO THE ADVOCATE GENERAL. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL OPINION DATED 15.12.2007. EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 07.03.2008. EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 23.04.2008. EXT.P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 25.07.2008. EXT.P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE STA DATED 28.08.2008. EXT.P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 09.09.2010. EXT.P10 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 29.09.2010. EXT.P11 : TRUE COPY OF A JUDGMENT DATED 22.05.2008 IN W.P.(C)No.14504/08. /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 31281 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 1st day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT The grievance projected in the writ petition is, with regard to Ext.P9 order passed by the 1st respondent without giving an opportunity of hearing and without regard to the actual facts and figures. 2. The sequence of events as narrated in the writ petition shows that, Ext.P7 guidelines were issued by the 1st respondent with regard to the granting of temporary permits, wherein it was stipulated under Clause (2) that the applications would not be considered when the original route bus is in tax arrears or with any other dues to the Government. It is stated that Ext.P7 guideline was being followed uniformly and thus it attained finality, by virtue of the absence of any successful challenge in this regard and since the matter was considered by the 2nd respondent, State Transport Authority, who declined interference as per Ext.P8. But on a fine morning, the 1st respondent sought to vary Clause (2) of Ext.P7 and passed WP(C) No. 31231 of 2010 -:2:- Ext.P9 order, aggrieved of which the petitioner has approached this Court after filing Ext.P10 statement of objections. 3. The learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents submits on instructions that, Ext.P9 has been passed by the 1st respondent in the best interest of the general public, because of the hardships being caused to them as projected before the 1st respondent. It is also stated that, Ext.P7 order was actually challenged “at the instance of the petitioner association”, which submission is vehemently rebutted by the petitioner by filing a reply affidavit and also with specific reference to Ext.P11 judgment, wherein the petitioner is a different association, who is not the petitioner in the present writ petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, Ext.P9 itself reveals that the decision to delete Clause (2) from Ext.P7 was taken by the 1st respondent “by circulation” under Rule 130 of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules and this being the position, the denial of opportunity of hearing is obvious on the face of the records, which hence sought to be interfered. 5. After hearing both sides, this Court finds WP(C) No. 31231 of 2010 -:3:- considerable force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The matter requires to be reconsidered by the 1st respondent, giving effective opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and all concerned. So as to facilitate such exercise, Ext.P2 is set aside and the 1st respondent is directed to consider the matter afresh, also taking note of Ext.P10 statement of objections filed by the petitioner and after giving an effective opportunity of hearing to all concerned. Appropriate orders shall be passed in this regard, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE ttb