IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 14TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 20793 of 2008(A) --------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. SIBI JOHN, PULINGAPPALLIL HOUSE, ETTUMANOOR P.O, KOTTAYAM. 2. TOMY CHANDY, VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, THIRUVAMPADY, NEEZHOOR, KOTTAYAM. 3. M.V.THOMAS, MEENKOLIL HOUSE, THAMARACHAL, KIZHAKKAMBALAM, ERNAKULAM. 4. JOHN THOMAS, MYALIL HOUSE, KALLARA SOUTH P.O, VAIKOM. BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM. 3. C.R.MANOHARAN, KARAYATHARA HOUSE, POONITHURA P.O, ERNAKULAM. 4. K.C.VARKEY, KUNNATHOOR HOUSE, ALAPURAM, ELANJI P.O, KOTTAYAM. *ADDL.R5. SHRI. BABU THOMAS, VELLOOKUNNEL HOUSE, NADAKKAL.P.O., THEEKOY, KOTTAYAM. *IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL. 5TH RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DATED 23/07/08 IN I.A. 9364/08. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH, R3 BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL, R4 BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS K.C.KUNNATHOOR, R5 BY SRI.P.C.HARIDAS. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/11/2008, ALONG WITH W.P.(C). NO. 24764/ 2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.20793/2008-A: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE PERMIT AND TIME SCHEDULE OF P.1. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE PERMIT AND TIME SCHEDULE OF P.2. (PERMIT TRANSFERRED TO THE NAME OF TOMY CHANDY). EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE PERMIT AND TIME SCHEDULE OF P.3. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE PERMIT AND TIME SCHEDULE OF P.4. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD. 13/11/2007. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE REQUEST DTD. 26/11/2007. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE REQUEST DTD. 12/11/2007. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE REVISION MEMORANDUM IN MVARP NO. 576/2007. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE REVISION MEMORANDUM IN MVARP NO. 137/2008 DTD. 19/04/2008. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN MVARP 576/07 AND 137/08 DTD. 04/06/2008. EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD. 24/12/2007. EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER IN MARP NO. 176 & 177/2000 DTD. 24/07/2008. EXT.P.12: COPY OF THE APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED BY THE R.3. DTD. 05/07/2004. EXT.P.13: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DTD. 05/05/2007. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R3.A: COPY OF THE ORDER REJECTING THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER FOR REVISION OF TIMINGS. EXT.R3.B: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE R.2. ISSUING REGULAR PERMIT WITH A SET OF TIMINGS TO THE R.3. EXT.R4.A: COPY OF THE TIMINGS PROPOSED BY THE R.3 AND WHICH WAS PUBLISHED IN THE NOTICE BOARD OF THE R.2. EXT.R4.B: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND THE TIMINGS ISSUED BY THE R.2. BY ORDER DTD. 13/11/2007. EXT.R4.C: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 14/11/2007 FILED BY THE R4 BEFORE THE R2. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. prv. V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.20793 & 24764 of 2008 ------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of November, 2008. JUDGMENT The orders under challenge in these two writ petitions are the same. Therefore, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The decision in W.P.(C)No.20793/08 will govern the other writ petition also. 2. The 3rd respondent herein filed an application for a regular permit on the route Aluva-Kottayam. The petitioner is also a stage carriage operator, inter alia, operating on the said route. By Ext.P9 proceedings, the Regional Transport Authority decided to issue a Temporary Permit. Timings were also settled. It seems that the 3rd respondent was not satisfied with the settlement of timings and he, therefore, filed an application on 26.11.2007 (which, according to the 3rd respondent is only a reiteration of the application dated 12.11.2007) for revision of his own timings. This application was considered and rejected by the W.P.(C).NO.20793/08 & con.case :: 2 :: Regional Transport Authority as per Ext.P11 order, produced along with I.A.No.9363/08. The 3rd respondent preferred MVARP No.137/08 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. 3. In the meanwhile, the 4th respondent herein, an existing operator on this route, had already challenged the settlement of timings as per Ext.P8 vide MVARP No.576/06. Both the aforementioned revisions were heard together by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and as per Ext.P10, the revisions were allowed. The order passed by the Regional Transport Authority was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Regional Transport Authority on the following lines: “In the result, both these revision petitions are allowed. The impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remanded to the second respondent to resettle the disputed timings in respect of the service of the petitioners in MVARP No.137/2008. Till such resettlement of the timings, the status quo will continue.” 4. Ext.P10 has been challenged in both these writ petitions. W.P.(C).NO.20793/08 & con.case :: 3 :: 5. Separate counter affidavits have been filed by respondents 3 and 4. 6. I heard learned counsel for the petitioners Sri.Dinesh Menon, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent, Sri.Sajeevkumar K.Gopal, Sri.Thomas K.C.Kunnathoor, learned counsel for the 4th respondent and learned Government Pleader Sri.P.N.Santhosh. 7. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that there were no grounds made out by respondents 3 and 4 for interference with Ext.P5 or P11 for that matter. The settlement of timings made by the Regional Transport Authority could have been interfered only if it is demonstrated to be illegal or arbitrary (Section 214(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act). It is further contended that an application for revision of timings settled by Ext.P5 could not have been preferred by the beneficiary of Ext.P5 - the 3rd respondent, within a few days of the settlement of timings. It is further contended that the said application did not satisfy the parameters of Rule 145(7) of the Motor Vehicles Rules. W.P.(C).NO.20793/08 & con.case :: 4 :: 8. Learned counsel for the 4th respondent submitted that the timings settled under Ext.P5, which is the same as Ext.R4(b), had brought about a clash of his own timings and though this aspect was brought to the notice of the Regional Transport Authority, it was not considered. Therefore, there was violation of the principles of natural justice, which warrants interference. 9. Insofar as the 3rd respondent is concerned, it was pointed out that an application for revision of his own timings could be maintained even de hors the parameters of Rule 145(7) of the Rules. Reference is made to Rule 212 of the Rules, which empowers the transport authority to exercise the power from time to time. 10. On a reading of Ext.P10 order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, I am constrained to note that the revisional authority has not entered any specific finding with regard to the illegality, irregularity or impropriety in either Ext.P5 or P11 proceedings of the Regional Transport W.P.(C).NO.20793/08 & con.case :: 5 :: Authority. By Ext.P5, the timings in relation to the service operated by the 3rd respondent is settled. The 3rd respondent did not seek to challenge it by way of revision. He sought for revision of his own timings. The same was rejected under Ext.P11 order. In considering MVARP No.137/08, the revisional authority was required to consider whether the request made by the 3rd respondent was maintainable or not. The Appellate Tribunal was also required to consider whether the order Ext.P11 warrants an interference by the revisional authority exercising powers under Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, read with Section 214 of the said Act. I do not find any specific finding in Ext.P10, satisfying the above ingredients. In other words, the revisional court has not considered whether Ext.P11 order, as such, warrants interference by the revisional authority. 11. Insofar as MVARP No.576/07 is concerned, no doubt, the petitioner in the said revision can consider himself aggrieved by Ext.P5. If that be so, the revisional authority W.P.(C).NO.20793/08 & con.case :: 6 :: should have considered whether the settlement of timings reached under Ext.P5 required to be corrected. If the revisional authority was of the opinion that there is an illegality in Ext.P5, there should be a finding to that effect and it is only consequent thereupon the matter could have been remitted back to the original authority. That has also not been done. I find that the revisional authority has merely referred to the pleadings in the revision to come to the conclusion that the order should be set aside. 12. For all these reasons, I am of the view that the two revisions are liable to be reconsidered by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. 13. In the result, the writ petition is allowed in part. Ext.P10 order is set aside. MVARP Nos.576/07 and 137/08 shall be taken back on file and the State Transport Appellate Tribunal shall pass fresh orders thereon after hearing the petitioners in the revision as also the petitioners in these writ petitions. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal shall pass W.P.(C).NO.20793/08 & con.case :: 7 :: fresh orders in the revision as early as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. W.P.(C)No.24764/08 No separate orders are necessary in this writ petition in the light of the directions issued in W.P.(C).NO.20793/08. The parties shall appear before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal on 03.12.2008. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy//