IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2010 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 35450 of 2009(A) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ RAVI R., AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.RAMASWAMY, MAYIL SWAMI THOTTAM, CHAVADIYOOR, AGALI. BY ADVS. MR.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL, SMT.AMBIKA RADHAKRISHNAN. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD. 3. P.RAJAMANY, RAJA NIVAS, NELLIPATHY, AGALI, PALAKKAD. R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. K.S.MUHAMMED HASHIM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.35450/2009 A APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: ROUGH SKETCH OF THE ROUTE WHICH SHOWS THE EXISTING ROUTE AS WELL AS THE PROPOSED DEVIATION AND THE DISTANCE COVERED. P2: COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE R.T.A. AT ITS MEETING HELD ON 26/11/2007 REJECTING THE APPLICATION FOR VARIATION SUBMITTED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT. P3: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL ON 18/06/2008 IN MVAA 887 OF 2007. P4: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE RTA PALAKKAD DTD. 15/10/2009 IN ITEM NO.20. P5: COPY OF THE NOTICE FOR TIMING CONFERENCE ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.35450 of 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a stage carriage operator who has filed this Writ Petition challenging Ext.P3 judgment of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (STAT) in MVAA No.887/2007. The petitioner had objected to a request for revision of own timings submitted by the third respondent. The request of the third respondent was considered by the authority and was rejected as per Ext.P2 proceedings. The third respondent challenged Ext.P2 before the STAT in MVAA No.887 of 2007. However, the petitioner who was one of the objectors before the first respondent was not made a party. Therefore, without giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, the matter was considered. The State Transport Appellate Authority set aside Ext.P2 proceedings and has remanded the matter for fresh consideration by the authority. 2. According to the petitioner, Ext.P3 judgment to the extent it has not given an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner is unsustainable. According to the petitioner, if an opportunity had been given to him, the order of remand would not have been passed. wpc No.35450/2009 2 3. Though notice has been served on the third respondent, none appears for him. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was not a party to the appeal before the STAT and that Ext.P3 has been passed without the petitioner on the party array. it is also not in dispute that the petitioner was one of the objectors before the Regional Transport Authority which issued Ext.P2 proceedings rejecting the request of the third respondent for the revision of his own timings. Therefore, the petitioner is certainly prejudiced by the judgment of the STAT setting aside Ext.P2 proceedings and directing fresh orders to be passed on the request for revision of timings submitted by the third respondent. In view of the fact that Ext.P3 has been passed without hearing the petitioner, the judgment is unsustainable. 4. For the above reasons, Ext.P3 is set aside. The STAT is directed to consider MVAA No.887/2007 afresh, after issuing notice to the petitioner also and hearing him. Fresh orders shall be passed in the appeal, after hearing the petitioner also. Consequently, Exts.P4 and P5 proceedings issued pursuant to Ext.P3 are also set aside. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/