IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 2ND ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 25939 of 2009(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- GEETHA, AGED 38 YEARS, W/O SUBRAMANIAN, RESIDING AT KALLINGAVALAPPIL HOUSE, VENGINIKKARA, EDAPPAL. BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PALAKKAD. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD. 3. P.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, GOVINDA BHAVAN, PERUMPARAMBA, EDAPPAL. 4. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.SAJU J.VALLYARA FOR R3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.S.MOHAMMED HASHIM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P. (C) No. 25939 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a stage carriage operator. By Ext.P1 order, the timing of the petitioner's stage carriage was settled consequent to variation of the condition of permit granted. That was on 12.5.2009. However, on 4.6.2009, within 25 days, even without issuing notice to the petitioner or any other person, the second respondent passed Ext.P2 order revising Ext.P1 order stated to be on the objection of the 3rd respondent filed on 4.6.2009 itself, that too without issuing any notice to or hearing the petitioner. The petitioner filed MVARP No.172 of 2009 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal challenging Ext.P2 order. In that Revision Petition, the petitioner sought the relief of setting aside Ext.P2 order dated 4.6.2009 and allowing the revision petition by restoring Ext.P1 proceedings. In W.P(C)No.17774 of 2009, this Court directed the Tribunal to pass orders on the stay petition, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that judgment. WPC. No. 25939 OF 2009 : 2 : However, before the Tribunal, the counsel for the petitioner appearing there, made a concession and by Ext.P5 order the Tribunal disposed of the revision petition setting aside Ext.P2 order and remanding the matter to the second respondent to reconsider the entire issue, within a time frame, after issuance of notice to both parties. The counsel on both sides made endorsement in M.P.No.1268/2009 to the effect that they are agreeable to that course of action. According to the petitioner, the counsel made that concession, without instruction from the petitioner. The petitioner submits that such a concession could not have been made, in so far as the Secretary, RTA has no power to review his own order. The remedy of the 3rd respondent if he was aggrieved by Ext.P1 is to file a revision petition before the Tribunal against Ext.P1 order. That being so, there could not have been any direction to reconsider the matter, in so far as that amounts to conferring on the Secretary, the power of reviewing his own orders, which the Secretary does not possess under law is the contention of the petitioner. 2. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit to the effect that Ext.P2 order was passed only for correcting an WPC. No. 25939 OF 2009 : 3 : inadvertent mistake in Ext.P1. The contention is that in Ext.P1, the departure timing at Pattambi at 2.27 pm was given as via VK while proceeding to Edappal, which ought to have been TK instead of VK. The counsel for the 3rd respondent submits that this mistake has only been corrected by Ext.P2. 3. This is strongly disputed by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, that was not a mistake at all and it was settled after hearing all persons, including the 3rd respondent. It is the petitioner's timings that was settled and not the 3rd respondent's. The Petitioner is perfectly happy with those timings. The Petitioner did not want any correction of any mistake in Ext.P1. Further, that was not the only change made in Ext.P2. In Ext.P2 the arrival time at Edappal has also been changed as 3.27 pm. Even the 3rd respondent has no case that, that is also a mistake. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the Secretary has in fact reviewed his earlier order and revised the petitioner's timings by Ext.P2, which is not permissible under law, submits counsel for the petitioner. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. I am not satisfied with the contentions of the 3rd respondent that Ext.P2 is only a correction of an inadvertent WPC. No. 25939 OF 2009 : 4 : mistake. It was the petitioner's timings that has been settled by Ext.P1. He has no difficulty with the timings in Ext.P1. Further it is not merely a correction by substituting TK for VK. Arrival time at Edappal also has been changed. The Secretary does not have power to review his own orders, since no such power has been conferred on him by statute. It is settled law that an authority does not get power to review his own decision unless specifically conferred by statute. Therefore, he could not have passed Ext.P2, that too, without giving notice to the petitioner or hearing any other operators. In the above circumstances, I do not think that the Tribunal could have remanded the matter to the Secretary for fresh consideration clothing him with the power to review his own order which he does not possess under law. The remedy of the 3rd respondent in such circumstances was to challenge Ext.P1 appropriately. 6. The petitioner has got another contention that what the 3rd respondent has to challenge is not Ext.P1, but the decision of the RTA itself. This is disputed by the counsel for the 3rd respondent. 7. Since I am inclined to take the above view the counsel for the 3rd respondent submits that he may be WPC. No. 25939 OF 2009 : 5 : permitted to challenge Ext.P1 by filing a revision petition before the Tribunal. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of as follows: The direction in Ext.P5 judgment of the Tribunal remanding the matter for fresh consideration by the secretary is set aside. If the 3rd respondent so wishes he may file a revision petition against Ext.P1 before the Tribunal within two weeks from today. If such a revision petition is filed, the same shall be treated as one within the time and disposed of on merits by the Tribunal. I make it abundantly clear that I have not considered the contentions of the petitioner either regarding the sustainability of Ext.P1 or the maintainability of a revision petition against Ext.P1 order on merit and the contentions of both parties on all points are left open. ( S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE) jma