IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JANUARY 2008 / 12TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 36400 of 2007(G) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- E.BASHEER, S/O. BEERANKUTTY, EDATHIL HOUSE, P.O.ORAVIL, NADUVANNUR, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, VATAKARA. 2. SECRETARY, R.T.A., VATAKARA. 3. SIVADASAN, KUNNIPARAMBATH HOUSE, P.O.KOTTAYAM MALABAR, KUTHUPARAMBA. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/12/2007, THE COURT ON 02/01/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO: 36400/2007 G APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1. COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOZHIKODE DT. 30/10/00. EXT.P2. COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 29/1/2001 IN MVARP NO. 340/00. EXT.P3. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 25/10/2006 IN OP NO. 5353/01. EXT.P4. COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 1/2/2007 IN IA NO. 65/07 IN OP NO. 5353/01. EXT.P5. COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE RTA, VATAKARA IN ITEM NO. 230. EXT.P6. COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE R1 DT. 17/11/2007. EXT.P7. COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 28/11/2007 IN MVARP NO. 542/2007. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL. True copy tga ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 36400 OF 2007 G ===================== Dated this the 2nd day of January, 2008 J U D G M E N T The relief sought for in this writ petition is to quash Exts. P6 and P7. Ext.P6 is an order passed by the RTA, Vatakara, directing the Secretary to stop operation of the stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-11/Z 3339 operating on the route Kodungallur-Kozhikode-Kannur as LSOS. Ext.P7 is an order passed by the STAT dismissing MVARP NO.542/07 filed by the petitioner against Ext.P6. 2. It is stated that the petitioner is the registered owner of Stage Carriage KL-11/Z 3339 covered by a permit valid till 10/02/2010. Originally, the permit was granted on 11.2.2000 to stage carriage bearing No.KL-11/J 1996. By Ext.P1 proceedings of the Secretary, RTA, Kozhikode, the service was permitted to start and halt at Ernakulam instead of Kannur and a revised WPC 36400/07 :2 : schedule of timings was also approved. That was challenged by one Sreekumar in MVARP No.340/2000 and was quashed by Ext.P2 order of the STAT. Ext.P2 order was challenged before this Court in OP 5353/01 and the order was stayed. 3. During the pendency of the writ petition, the original permit holder obtained a curtailment of the route, as a result of which, the route became Kodungallur-Kannur and this variation was also endorsed. It is while so that the permit was transferred to the petitioner vide proceedings dated 20/12/2002 and thereafter, petitioner got the varied permit renewed in his name. Much after this, the original petition referred to above was dismissed as infructuous by Ext.P3 judgment. It is stated that contending with the dismissal of the writ petition, Ext.P2 order of the STAT had revived, the 3rd respondent approached the 2nd respondent, and in view of this, that the petitioner apprehend that he is likely to be affected, and filed an IA for clarifying Ext.P3 judgment and that was disposed of by Ext.P4. 4. It is stated that inspite of this, the 3rd respondent herein filed WP(C) No.1096/07 praying for a direction to enforce Ext.P2 order. It is stated that in that writ petition, petitioner also got himself impleaded and the writ petition is still pending. WPC 36400/07 :3 : Meanwhile, the petitioner was informed that an item has been included in the meeting of the RTA scheduled on 17/11/2007 referring to the petitioner's stage carriage and also Ext.P2 order of the STAT. Of being informed the same, the petitioner made arrangements through counsel to represent before the RTA that there was no notice of such posting and that the matter is subjudice. Petitioner submits that inspite of all these the RTA proceeded to consider the matter and by Ext.P6, the Secretary was directed to stop operation of the petitioner's vehicle on the basis that the permit now operating was not in existence w.e.f.31/10/2000. 5. The consequence of Ext.P6 was abrupt stoppage of petitioner's service and according to him as it was passed even without notice, the said order was in violation of the principles of natural justice. Petitioner challenged Ext.P6 before the Tribunal in MVARP No.542/2007, without impleading the 3rd respondent. Taking note of the submission that so long as WP(C) 1096/07 filed by the 3rd respondent was pending, there was no justification for the RTA to pass Ext.P6 order, the Tribunal held that the revision petition cannot be entertained as the petitioner had not impleaded the 3rd respondent. On this basis, revision petition WPC 36400/07 :4 : was dismissed. It is in these circumstances, this writ petition has been filed praying for quashing Exts. P6 and P7. 6. True the petitioner would contend that when original petition was dismissed by Ext.P3 judgment, the writ petition had become infructuous, since the permit was already curtailed and was transferred to him. It is also his contention that the permit was thereafter renewed by him. The argument is that in view of all these developments that have taken place in the meanwhile, dismissal of the original petition or for that matter Ext.P2 order of the STAT allowing revision against Ext.P1, are inconsequential. 7. It is his further contention that the RTA could not have ordered cancellation of his permit without notice to the petitioner. This argument of the petitioner is contested by the 3rd respondent by referring to para 19 of the writ petition, where the petitioner himself is admitting that a counsel had represented him before the RTA in the meeting held on 17/11/2000. The counsel for the 3rd respondent would also seek to justify Ext.P7 order of the STAT, which dismissed the petitioner's revision petition on the ground that the 3rd respondent was not impleaded. 8. Although both sides have much to argue against each other, I think the RTA was not justified in deciding to cancel the WPC 36400/07 :5 : permit of the petitioner, without putting the petitioner on advance notice. As I have already noticed, he has several valid contentions to urge against the cancellation. In such circumstances, principles of natural justice requires that RTA should have heard the petitioner. Neither the 3rd respondent nor the learned Government Pleader had a case that the petitioner was put on notice. On the other hand what the 3rd respondent would argue is that a counsel had represented in the RTA proceedings, the circumstances of which has been explained in the writ petition. 9. Taking into account the pleadings of the petitioner in Para 19 of the writ petition and also the fact that none of the respondents have filed a counter affidavit in this case, I am inclined to believe the story canvassed by the petitioner. Therefore, I have to hold that the RTA acted in violation of the principles of natural justice when it considered the matter relating to the petitioner's permit in their meeting held on 17/11/2007. Necessarily Ext. P7 order upholding Ext. P6 also will have to be set aside. For these reasons, I am inclined to direct that the matter shall be reconsidered by the RTA. 10. Therefore, I quash Exts. P6 and P7 and direct that the WPC 36400/07 :6 : 1st respondent shall reconsider the matter in relation to the Stage Carriage KL-11/Z 3339 operating in the route Kodungallur- Kannur, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 3 months of production of a copy of this judgment. This shall be with sufficient notice to the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. Rp