IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2010 / 1ST ASWINA 1932 RP.No. 683 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.13895/2010 Dated 03/06/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/NOT A PARTY TO THE WRIT PETITION: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- P.V.JOJO, PUDUKKADAN HOUSE, KASTHOORBA LANE, KOORKKANCHERRY, TRICHUR. BY ADVS. SRI.C.S.MANILAL, SRI.S.NIDHEESH. RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1-4 IN THE W.P.(C): ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. C.O.JOHNSON, CHEERAN HOUSE, NEDUPUZHA, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, ANIL K.ANTONY, KOLENCHERRY HOUSE, KANIMANGALAM, TRICHUR - PIN - 680 027. 2. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM - 682 011. 3. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM - 676 505. 4. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, TRICHUR - 680 001. 5. P.A.SIVARAMAN, PARAMMAL HOUSE, PANNISSERY, KOONAMMOOCHI, GURUVAYOOR - 680 504. R1 BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON R2 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SUNILKUMAR THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/09/2010 ALONG WITH WPC NO. 21144 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ R.P.NO: 683 OF 2010 IN W.P(C) NO: 13895 OF 2010 & W.P(C) NO: 21144 OF 2010 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd September, 2010. O R D E R The dispute in both these cases relate to the timings subject to which the petitioner as well as the respondents are to operate their services on the Kunnamkulam-Kozhikode sector, which forms a common sector for all the parties. 2. The petitioner in W.P(C) 13895/2010 is the registered owner of stage carriage vehicle bearing registration No: KL-8 AR/5655 conducting services on the route Kodungallur-Guruvayur- Kozhikode. The fourth respondent in the writ petition is the registered owner of stage carriage vehicle bearing registration No: KL-46/A 2399 conducting services on the route Kozhikode- Guruvayur. At a timing conference convened by the Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram the timings of the fourth respondent's stage carriage were settled. While settling the timings of the said vehicle one particular timing of the writ petitioner was altered by the Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram, with the consent of the writ petitioner. However, the particular timing allotted to the writ petitioner was later found to be objectionable R.P.683/2010 & WPC 21144/2010 2 for the reason that it had already been allotted to another operator who was not a party to the said proceedings. Therefore, the RTA, Thrissur declined permission to the petitioner to operate with the said particular timing. The writ petitioner was placed in a situation where he could not operate either with the timings that he had chosen or with the timing that was earlier allotted to him. In the above circumstances as per judgment dated 3/6/2010 in W.P(C) 13895/2010, the RTA, Thrissur was directed to resolve the stale mate by settling the timings of both the petitioner and the fourth respondent in a suitable manner. Though it was expected that a solution to the entire problem could be worked out in the process, it appears that the matter has only been complicated. The review petition, R.P.683/2010 has been filed by another operator who was not a party to the earlier writ petition alleging suppression of material facts against the writ petitioner and complaining that he was not made a party to the proceedings before this Court though he was an interested person. 3. Pursuant to the direction of this Court in the judgment dated 3/6/2010, it appears that the timing conference was conducted by the RTA, Thrissur on 6/7/2010 and a resettlement of the timings of both the writ petitioner and fourth respondent R.P.683/2010 & WPC 21144/2010 3 have been effected. The said proceedings are not produced before this Court. However, the action of the RTA, Thrissur is under challenge in WPC 21144/2010 alleging that the RTA, Thrissur had not afforded an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner therein. As per orders in successive impleading petitions filed, additional respondents 2 to 6 have also got themselves impleaded as parties. Since the issue in controversy is essentially the same, both the review petition as well as the writ petition are considered together. 4. It is the contention of the counsel for the review petitioner that the writ petition, WPC 13895/2010 should not have been entertained at all for the reason that the same was filed by the writ petitioner who had earlier filed a review petition before the State Transport Appellate Authority ('STAT' for short) and have failed to obtain interim orders. The second contention of the review petitioner is that though he is an operator conducting services on the common sector from Kunnamkulam to Kozhikode, he was not made a party to the writ petition. Thirdly, it is contended that the pendency of another writ petition WPC 8629/2009 between the same parties was not disclosed in the writ petition. 5. Counsel for the writ petitioner counters the above R.P.683/2010 & WPC 21144/2010 4 allegations by pointing out that the relief that he had sought for in the earlier writ petition was only implementation of one particular time slot that was altered by the RTA, Malappuram. Since the dispute was only between the writ petitioner and the fourth respondent therein, it is submitted that no other person was necessary to be made party to the same. The counsel for the petitioner also relies on a judgment of this Court to contend that it is not permissible in law, to seek review of a judgment on the ground that all aspects of the case were not highlighted before the Court at the time when the earlier judgment was pronounced. 6. It is trite that for the purpose of reviewing an earlier judgment, the petitioner would have to establish that there was an error apparent on the face of the record or that there were other sufficient reasons to justify a review of the same. In the above case the counsel for the review petitioner has not been able to point out any error, either apparent or latent in the judgment that is sought to be reviewed, to justify invocation of the power of review . True, the review petitioner is justified in submitting that he was not made a party to the writ petition. However, at the said point of time there was no dispute between the review petitioner and the petitioner in the writ petition, with regard to the time slot that was sought to be R.P.683/2010 & WPC 21144/2010 5 altered. Though the counsel for the review petitioner relies on Annexure VIII proceedings to contend that all along there was a dispute between the writ petitioner and the review petitioner regarding the departure time of 8.40 a.m from Guruvayur, I notice that the departure time of the review petitioner as per Annexure VIII is 8.17 a.m and that no separate timing has been allotted to him. As per Annexure IX, the departure time of 8.40 a.m that was earlier allotted to the writ petitioner has been allotted to the fourth respondent and the writ petitioner was allotted the departure time of 8.30 a.m. Therefore it cannot be said that the writ petitioner had deliberately not made the review petitioner a party to the writ petition. As per the judgment that is sought to be reviewed, what the Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur has been directed was only to work out a solution to the problem that has been highlighted in the said judgment. It has also been made clear that such decision would have to be taken after hearing all interested persons. Therefore, I do not find any ground to review the judgment dated 3/6/2010 of this Court. 7. Pursuant to the judgment of this Court, the Secretary, RTA, Thrissur convened a timing conference on 6/7/2010 and has settled the timings of both the petitioner as well as the fourth R.P.683/2010 & WPC 21144/2010 6 respondent. However, it is submitted that no proceedings thereof has been issued to the parties yet. According to the petitioner the timings have been settled without affording an opportunity of being heard. The fourth respondent in the earlier writ petition has got himself impleaded as second respondent in this writ petition while the review petitioner in R.P.683/2010 has got himself impleaded as the additional third respondent. Other operators have got themselves impleaded as additional respondents 4 to 6. Though the timing conference was conducted on 6/7/2010, it is agreed by all that no proceedings have been issued by the first respondent till date. Since it is contended that all interested parties were not heard at the timing conference on 6/7/2010 I feel that it is necessary to afford an opportunity of being heard to all the interested parties for the purpose of working out a solution to the problem that has been highlighted in these proceedings. Though it was contended that this writ petition is liable to be dismissed, relegating the parties to pursue their statutory remedy before the STAT, I feel that for a resolution of the entire controversy it is better that a set of suitable timings are formulated and settled by the Secretary, RTA, Thrissur without further delay. Since there are complaints against the timing conference held on 6/7/2010, a fresh R.P.683/2010 & WPC 21144/2010 7 timing conference has to be conducted for the above purpose. 8. In the above circumstances this writ petition as well as review petition are disposed of with the following directions:- i) R.P.683/2010 is dismissed. ii) There shall be a direction to the first respondent in WPC 21144/2010 to convene a timing conference with notice to the writ petitioner as well as respondents 2 to 6 herein and any other operator who may be interested. iii) A suitable set of timings shall be settled, if necessary after resettling the timings of any of the other operators, so as to work out a settlement of the controversy that has been raised, after considering the objections of all interested persons. iv) The timing conference as indicated above shall be convened as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj R.P.683/2010 & WPC 21144/2010 8