IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2008 / 11TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 21776 of 2007(P) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- M. ABDUL JABBAR, S/O. N.A. MOHAMMED, NEDUMPURAKKAL HOUSE, KALOOR, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR. 3. V.U. JOHN, VADAKKAN HOUSE, VELLIKULANGARA P.O., THRISSUR. 4. SHRI P.A. YESUDAS, PAYYAPPILLY HOUSE, P.O. VARANDARAPPILLY,THRISSUR. By GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.V. MANOJKUMAR BY ADV. SRI.P.RAVINDRAN (SR.) - R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/06/2008, THE COURT ON 2/07/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.21776/2007 P APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE IST RESPONDENT DTD. 16/11/2006. EXT.P2; COPY OF INTERIM ORDER OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DTD. 3/1/2007 IN WP(C) NO.28805/2006 D EXT.P3: COPY OF INTIMATION DTD. 18/11/2006 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE NO.G/43490/06/R TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4: JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DTD. 3/01/2007 IN WP(C) 90/2007 I. EXT.P5: COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT, DTD. 8/01/2007 IN WP9C) NO.28805/2006 D. EXT.P6: COPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 18/01/2007. EXT.P7: COPY OF NOTIFICATION NO.12951/2001/TVM DTD. 9/5/2007 REFERRED TO IN THE WRIT PETITION (CIVIL). RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 21776 OF 2007 P = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 2nd July 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner had applied for a regular permit on the route Thrissur-North Bus Stand-Varandarapilly by offering stage carriage KL 8/T 4007. The 1st respondent by Ext. P1 proceedings dated 16.8.2006 granted the permit applied for, subject to settlement of his timing. Petitioner submits that on account of delay in the settlement of timing, he had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 28805/06. In that writ petition this Court passed Ext. P2 interim order directing that if Ext. P2 application for temporary permit was received from the petitioner, the same shall be considered and orders passed. 2. It is stated that in the meanwhile respondents 3 and 4 filed a writ petition, W.P.(C) No. 90/07 before this Court challenging Ext. P1 grant. That writ petition was dismissed by Ext. P4 judgment following the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Binu Chacko v. W.P.(C) No. 21776 OF 2008 -2- RTA, Pathanamthitta {2006(2) KLT 172}, and leaving it open to respondents 3 and 4 to pursue their grievances before the Tribunal, proving that there is illegality or impropriety of a substantial nature and that they have a legal grievance to be redressed. 3. Petitioner contends that subsequent to Ext. P4, on 8.1.2007 W.P.(C) No. 28805/06 filed by him in which Ext. P2 order was passed, was disposed of by this Court by Ext. P5 judgment directing that the Secretary, RTA shall convene a timing conference and issue permit to the petitioner expeditiously, at any rate within two months. It is his contention that subsequently in the RTA meeting scheduled on 18.1.2007, Ext. P2 interim order was placed for its consideration and the RTA passed Ext. P6 decision, to revoke Ext. P1 grant and reject his application for permit. It is challenging Ext. P6 in the aforesaid circumstances the writ petition is filed. 4. Respondents 1 and 2 in the counter affidavit filed by them seek to reiterate the position that the route covered by Ext. P1 overlaps the notified route and that by the impugned proceedings they were only correcting a mistake. 5. I have heard the senior counsel for the petitioner, learned W.P.(C) No. 21776 OF 2008 -3- Govt. Pleader and also the senior counsel who appeared for respondents 3 and 4. 6. Ext. P6 is the decision impugned. This decision was taken by the RTA in their meeting held on 18.1.2007 and is signed by the Secretary only on 19.3.2007 and the petitioner submits that he received it only on 29.5.2007. From Ext. P6 it is evident that Ext. P5 judgment rendered in W.P.(C) No. 28805/06 filed by the petitioner was not placed for the consideration of the RTA and that only Ext. P2 order requiring the Secretary of the RTA to pass orders on the application made by the petitioner for temporary permit was placed for its consideration. 7. The main complaint raised in the writ petition is that while passing Ext. P6 order, the petitioner was not put on notice of any proposal for revocation of the permit or rejection of his application. Petitioner has a case that the allegation of scheme violation, cannot be a reason for cancellation of the permit as per Section 86 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Yet another contention raised is that since this Court in Ext. P4 judgment relegated respondents 3 and 4 to pursue the statutory remedies available to them, they ought to W.P.(C) No. 21776 OF 2008 -4- have taken recourse to those remedies rather than pursuing the matter before the RTA itself by preferring a revision seeking cancellation of his permit. 8. Having heard the counsel on either side, I feel, petitioner is justified in his complaint that he was not put on notice of any proposal for cancellation of the permit. Of course he has valid contentions relying on Section 86 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Ext. P4 judgment rendered by this Court. He had also contended that by the time Ext. P6 decision was taken on 18.1.2007, this Court had in Ext. P5 judgment rendered on 8.1.2007 already directed the respondents to convene timing conference and issue the permit. In any case, these contentions could not be urged by the petitioner when the matter was considered by the RTA on 18.1.2007 and thus the decision to revoke the permit and reject his application was taken by the RTA without putting the petitioner on notice of the allegations based on which permit was cancelled. 9. In my view, the course of action adopted by the RTA cannot be upheld and for that reason Ext. P6 should be invalidated. Therefore, I quash Ext. P6 and direct that the RTA should issue W.P.(C) No. 21776 OF 2008 -5- notice to the petitioner explaining the grounds on which cancellation is proposed and he should also be granted an opportunity of hearing. Thereafter the RTA shall take a fresh decision in the matter in accordance with law. It is clarified that on the strength of this judgment the petitioner will not be entitled to insist on convening of timing conference pursuant to Ext. P1 and issue of the permit granted therein. These matters can be pursued by the petitioner once the RTA renders its decision in the manner as directed. 10. The RTA shall reconsider the matter as above, with notice to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 3 months of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-