IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2008 / 30TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 31065 of 2008(W) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER : ---------------- THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S.CONFRATE CARGO SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, 24/1572, WILLINGTON ISLAND, KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON SRI.M.JITHESH MENON RESPONDENTS : ------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No.31065 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 22nd October, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges Exhibit-P5 judgment of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. As per Exhibit-P5, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal has allowed the petitioner's appeal by way of setting aside the impugned order and directed the Regional Transport Authority to pass fresh order on re-consideration of the matter in the light of the observations contained in the judgment. Paragraph 4 of Exhibit-P5 judgment of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal reads as follows: “The main argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant was that before the suspension of the permit, the appellant was not given the notice or an opportunity of being heard as required under proviso to Section 86(1) of the M.V Act. Going by the impugned order, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is not without basis. No doubt, if actually the offences relating to the check reports in question are not compounded in accordance the provisions contained in Section 86(5) of the M.V Act read with Rule 186 of the KMV Rules, the transport authority can proceed under Section 86 (1) of the M.V Act to cancel or suspend the permit. But before doing so, the permit holder must be issued the notice under the proviso to 86 (1) of the M.V Act and he must also be given an W.P ( C) No.31065 of 2008 2 opportunity of being heard. In this case, it is the definite case of the appellant that he was prepared to compound the offences relating to cheque reports. This being the position, I am of the view that the impugned order is liable to be set aside, thereby remanding the matter to the 1st respondent for fresh consideration, according to law and after giving the appellant the notice as required under the proviso to Section 86 (1) of the M.V Act and an opportunity of being heard as well. It is made clear that if only the appellant is not willing to compound the offence, he need be issued the notice as aforesaid.” I do not find any grounds to interfere with Exhibit-P5 judgment of the Appellate Tribunal. But I make it clear that the Regional Transport Authority shall pass fresh order pursuant to Exhibit-P5 judgment, without further delay, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No.31065 of 2008 3 W.P ( C) No.31065 of 2008 4