IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2008 / 8TH MAGHA 1929 WA.No. 123 of 2008 --------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.8821/2007 Dated 15/06/2007 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER -------------------------------------- P.ALI HASSAN, S/O. BEERANKUTTY MUSLIAR, PATTUPARA HOUSE, OTTATHARA, P.O.KODUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAVINDRAN (SR.) RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS -------------------------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, WAYANAD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, WAYANAD. 3. THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KSRTC, WAYANAD. 4. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. R1, R2 & R4 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K. MEERA. R3 BY ADV. SHRI K. PRABHAKARAN, SC, KSRTC. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L. DATTU, CJ. & K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------------------- W. A. NO. 123 OF 2008 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th January, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L. DATTU, C.J: In this Writ Appeal filed under Section of the High Court Act, appellant/petitioner calls in question the correctness or otherwise of the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C).No.8821/07 dated 15.6.2007. 2. Facts in nut-shell are: Petitioner had filed an application for renewal of the regular permit before the RTA, Kozhikode. After receipt of the said application, the Secretary, RTA, Kozhikode had sought the approval of the RTA, Palakkad, RTA, Malappuram and RTA, Wayanad. It is his case before this Court that the RTA, Palakkad and RTA, Malappuram have granted concurrence. However, it appears that the RTA, Wayanad by Ext.P5 order has rejected the concurrence sought for by the Secretary, RTA, Kozhikode. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the RTA, Wayanad, petitioner had preferred a Revision Petition before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal has also rejected the Revision Petition. Petitioner called in question the orders passed by the RTA, Wayanad (Ext.P5) and the orders passed by the STAT (Ext.P7) before this Court in W.P.(C). No.8821/07. He also sought for a declaration in the Writ Petition that the request for concurrence for renewal of the petitioner's permit cannot be rejected on the ground that the route length WA 123/08 2 exceeds 140 kilometres. 3. At the time of hearing of this Writ Appeal, Shri P. Ravindran, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the RTA, Wayanad before rejecting the application filed by petitioner (Ext.P7) ought to have afforded an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, since any order that may be passed by the RTA, Wayanad will affect the interest of the petitioner. Therefore, it is stated that the order passed by the RTA, Wayanad is in violation of the principles of natural justice and, therefore, the said order is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 4. Learned senior Government Pleader appearing for the RTA, Wayanad would submit that the RTA, Wayanad had only published a notice of hearing in the Notice Board and in the Newspapers and had not issued any individual notice to the petitioner. According to the learned Government Pleader, this is sufficient compliance with the requirement under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act read with the Rules. 5. The facts are not in dispute. Petitioner had filed an application for renewal of his regular permit before the RTA, Kozhikode. The Secretary, RTA, Kozhikode had sought concurrence of the RTAs of Palakkad, Malappuram and Wayanad, since the route that may be granted would come under these three Districts. It is also not in dispute that the RTAs of Palakkad and Malappuram have granted concurrence as requested by the Secretary, RTA, Kozhikode. However, the RTA, Wayanad has rejected the request of the Secretary, RTA, Kozhikode. In our opinion, before such rejection was made, the RTA, Wayanad ought to have granted an opportunity of hearing in a case where if an order is passed, it would affect the interest of the WA 123/08 3 parties. The principles of natural justice would require that the parties affected shall be heard in the matter. Since that has not been done in this case, we cannot sustain the orders passed by the RTA, Wayanad. This aspect of the matter ought to have been considered by the STAT. Therefore, the orders of the Tribunal cannot be sustained. In such circumstances, we pass the following: Order (i) The Writ Appeal is disposed of. (ii) The impugned orders, Exts.P5 and P7 passed by the RTA, Wayanad and the STAT respectively are quashed with a direction to the RTA, Wayanad to pass appropriate orders on the request made by the Secretary, RTA, Kozhikode on the application of the petitioner for renewal of the regular permit, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the contesting respondent, namely the KSRTC. (iii) Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to raise all the contentions which are available to him including the contentions raised in the Writ Petition, before the RTA, Wayanad. Ordered accordingly. H.L. DATTU, CHIEF JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk/dk. WA 123/08 4