IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2009 / 26TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 25808 of 2008(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.S.SIDDIQUE, AGED 45, S/O.SAIDALAVI, MULACKAL HOUSE, CHERUTHURUTHY, TRICHUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON SRI.M.JITHESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD. 2. SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY PALAKKAD. 3. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY TRISSUR, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 4. K.A.JOSEPH MASTER, MEMBER, VALLATHOLE NAGAR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PO.CHERUTHURUTHY 5. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON FOR R4 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SMITHA SUKUMAR FOR R1-3 & 5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 25808/08. APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE STATEMENT DTD.26.12.05. P2. COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN HRMP NO.3521/06 DTD.14.11.06. P3. COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD.15.11.07. P4. COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD.6.6.08. P5. COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD.6.6.08. P6. COPY OF THE ORDER OF R1 DTD.20.11.07. P7. COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM FILED BY THE PETITIONER AS MVAA NO.352/08 (WITHOUT EXHIBITS) DTD.17.6.08. P8. COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DTD.18.6.08 IN MP.NO.1565/08 IN MVAA NO.352/08. P9. COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY R4 IN M.V.AA NO.352/08. P10. COPY OF THE IMPLEADING PETITION M.P.NO.1723/08 IN MVAA NO.35208 DTD.2.7.08. P11. COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DTD.10.7.08 IN M.P.NO.1723/08 IN MVAA NO.352/08. P12. COPY OF THE REPLY AFFIDAVIT BY R4. P13. COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL COUNTER AFFIDAVIT BY THE PETITIONER IN THE ABOVE MVAA. P14. COPY OF THE ORDER IN MP.NO.1723/08 IN THE ABOVE MVAA. P15. COPY OF THE ORDER OF R5 IN M.P.NO.1231/08 IN MVRP NO.121/08 DTD.20.6.08. P16. COPY OF THE ORDER IN W.P.(C).No. 20659/08 DTD.14.7.08. Sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.25808 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 17th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is an existing stage carriage operator in the route Shornur-Pattambi-Nedumpura. On public demand, the petitioner extended the service upto Pallikkal School Junction and he was realising additional charges from the passengers for going upto Pallikkal School Junction. Since the passengers refused to pay the additional charges, the petitioner stopped the service upto Pallikkal School Junction. The Regional Transport Authority suo motu varied the petitioner's permit upto Pallikkal School Junction. Against that order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. In that appeal, the 4th respondent, who is a member of the local grama Panchayat filed an application to implead himself as a respondent in the appeal. That application was allowed by Ext.P14 order of the Tribunal. The petitioner is challenging that order in this writ petition. According to the petitioner, the 4th respondent has no right to be impleaded as a party to that appeal. 2. I have heard parties. 3. From the order of the RTA granting variation, an appeal lies to the Tribunal under Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act, as per which, any person aggrieved by any variation of the conditions of the permit may file an appeal to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. I 2 am of opinion that in case of an order in favour of the petitioner, the 4th respondent, as a passenger travelling in the particular route in question, would be an aggrieved person entitled to maintain an appeal against that order in favour of the petitioner. If that be so, the 4th respondent is certainly entitled to be impleaded as a party to the appeal filed by the petitioner also. 4. In any event, the petitioner would not in any way be prejudiced by the 4th respondent coming into the party array. The 4th respondent himself has all along been pursuing the cause for extension of the service of the petitioner upto Pallikkal School Junction. Therefore, in public interest also, it is only just and proper that the 4th respondent be impleaded as a respondent in the appeal before the RTA. In the above circumstances, I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner in so far as the petitioner is not in any way prejudiced by the impleading of the 4th respondent as an additional respondent in the appeal. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge 3