IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DECEMBER 2009 / 2ND POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 30560 of 2009(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SAJU DANEIL, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.DANIEL, ARAICKAL HOUSE, PERUMANOOR P.O., UPPUKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, IDUKKI. 2. P.M.KUNJUMON, PAKKOLIL HOUSE, KONNATHADY CENTRAL P.O., IDUKKI. 3. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, IDUKKI. ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON FOR R2 ADV.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR, SC SR. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.K.S.MUHAMMED HASHIM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 30560/09. APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE ORDER OF R1. DTD.8.9.09. P2. COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD.12.10.09. P3. COPY OF THE ORDER OF R2 DTD.20.12.09. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 30560 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 23rd day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a stage carriage operator. The 2nd respondent is another stage carriage operator. In respect of the 2nd respondent's stage carriage service, Ext.P1 timings were alloted to him. Ext.P1 timings were issued after hearing the petitioner and the KSRTC also. It appears that the KSRTC objected to Ext.P1 timings. Thereupon, the 1st respondent passed Ext.P3 order revising the timings of the 2nd respondent's stage carriage service. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P3 on the ground that the 1st respondent has no power to review his own decision on timings, unless there is change of circumstances warranting revision of timings as contemplated by the Motor Vehicles Act. According to the petitioner, Ext.P1 timings were fixed on 8.9.2009 and Ext.P3 order has been passed barely one-and-a-half months' thereafter on 20.10.2009. Therefore, if at all the KSRTC had objection to Ext.P1, the remedy of the KSRTC was to file a revision before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, the petitioner submits that Ext.P3 is liable to be quashed. 2. The 2nd respondent has filed counter affidavit stating that it is not at his instance that Ext.P3 order was passed. In fact, the 2nd respondent was also contemplating filing a revision against Ext.P1 2 when notice regarding timing conference was received within days after passing Ext.P1 order. Therefore, he had no chance to file revision against Ext.P1 order also. Ext.P1 order was changed by Ext.P3. According to the 2nd respondent, he cannot be put to prejudice because of the action of the Secretary, RTA and the KSRTC, but he submits that he may be given an opportunity to challenge Ext.P1 by filing a revision notwithstanding the fact that the period of limitation for filing the revision is over. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and the learned standing counsel for the KSRTC. 4. No doubt, the 1st respondent ought not to have acted on the basis of the objections by the KSRTC to review Ext.P1. He had no such powers, which is settled law. The 1st respondent ought to have relegated the KSRTC to their remedy by way of revision before the Tribunal. Therefore, Ext.P3 is liable to be quashed. But because of the action of respondents 1 and 3, the 2nd respondent has been put to prejudice in so far as he was prevented from challenging Ext.P1 in a revision appropriately. Therefore, although Ext.P3 order is wrong, I am of opinion that the 2nd respondent should be given an opportunity to file revision against Ext.P1, notwithstanding the fact that the period of limitation for filing such revision is over because of passing of Ext.P3 3 order. Therefore, I am of opinion that for the purpose of computing limitation for challenging Ext.P1 the 2nd respondent is entitled to have the period from the date of receipt of Ext.P2 notice till the date of this judgment excluded. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: Ext.P3 order is quashed. If the 2nd respondent files a revision against Ext.P1 order before the Tribunal, for the purpose of computing limitation, the Tribunal shall exclude the period from 12.10.2009 till today and consider the revision accordingly. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge