IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 19TH DECEMBER 2011 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WA.No. 1933 of 2011() --------------------- APPELLANT/PETITIONER: --------------------------- K.K.NAZAR,KARUKUNNATH HOUSE, PERINGALA P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN SMT.R.PADMAKUMARI RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 682 030. 2. THE SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY ERNAKULAM 682 030. 3. A.S.NAZEER, ATHIKA PARAMBIL HOUSE, CHITTETHUKKARA, CEPZ P.O, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM 678 537. 4. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM 682 016. R1, R2 & R4 BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER,SMT. K. MEERA. R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Manjula Chellur, Ag. C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A. No. 1933 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 19th day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Ramachandra Menon, J. Appellant is the unsuccessful writ petitioner. The writ petition was filed challenging Ext.P8 order passed by the STAT in the concerned Revision Petition, whereby the impugned order was set aside and the matter was remitted for reconsideration of the timings in respect of the Stage Carriage operated by the appellant/writ petitioner as well as the 3rd respondent. 2. The appellant is a stage carriage operator running the stage Carriage bearing No.KL 17/9199 in the route Tripunithura-Kakkanad-Ernakulam on the strength of a regular permit and of course based on Ext.P1 time schedule. The 3rd respondent is another stage carriage operator in the route Tripunithura-Aluva via Irumbanam, Kakkanad, Ahtani, Mundampalam, Kangarapady and Carmel Hospital. By virtue of the adverse circumstances, the 3rd respondent sought for variation of his permit, so as to enable him to operate trips in the W.A. No. 1933 of 2011 -:2:- desired manner. After considering the application, the concerned authority passed an order with regard to settlement of timings; copy of which was, however, not served to the 3rd respondent which made him to approach this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.6975 of 2010. The said writ petition was disposed of as per Ext.P4 judgment, pursuant to which, a certified copy of the relevant proceedings, settling the timings pursuant to Ext.P3 was served, as borne by Ext.P5. 3. Being aggrieved of Ext.P5, the 3rd respondent preferred a revision petition before the STAT under Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as borne by Ext.P6. The writ petitioner got impleaded in the said revision petition as the additional 3rd respondent. After considering the rival contentions, the STAT set aside the impugned order, i.e. Ext.P5, and passed Ext.P8 order dated 29.06.2011, whereby the 2nd respondent was directed to consider the matter afresh; especially with regard to the issue as to the idling time in respect of the stage carriage bearing No. KL-7/AK 3917 belonging to the W.A. No. 1933 of 2011 -:3:- 3rd respondent. An opportunity of hearing has also been provided before taking any such decision, stipulating for serving notice to the writ petitioner as well as the 3rd respondent herein who were the parties before the STAT. It was challenging the said order that, the appellant approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition, which was dismissed in limine and forms the subject matter of challenge in this appeal. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, we find that the grievance of the appellant, if any, does not deserve to be considered at the hands of this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, more so when, both the parties were heard and rights have been reserved to be agitated on remand ordered by the STAT, vide Ext.P8. No prejudice whatsoever has been resulted to either of the parties because of the action pursued by the Tribunal and it is obviously an 'open remand' and the matter is to be considered by the concerned authority in accordance with the relevant provisions of law. It is open for the appellant to raise all the contentions to W.A. No. 1933 of 2011 -:4:- substantiate his case before the STAT and as such the verdict passed by the learned Single Judge does not call for any interference. The Writ Appeal is dismissed accordingly. Manjula Chellur, Ag. Chief Justice. P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge. ttb