IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2009 / 28TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 35637 of 2008(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.K.RAVINDRAN, AGED 60, S/O.KARUPPAN, MUDAVANGATTIL HOUSE, P.O.CHAZHOOR, TRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON SRI.M.JITHESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI. JOHNSON P. JOHN, S.C. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. DILEEP MOHAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C.35637/2008. ------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF REGULAR PERMIT DT. 5-2-2007. EXT.P2 APPLICATION DT. 2-3-2007 EXT.P3 PROCEEDINGS DT. 21-8-2007. EXT.P4 LETTER DT. 15-11-2007. EXT.P5 JUDGMENT IN W.P.C.NO. 3611/08. EXT.P6 ORDER DT. 26-2-2008 EXT.P7 JUDGMENT IN W.P.C. NO. 119796/2008. EXT.P8 NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P9 ORDER DT. 19-7-2008. EXT.P10 APPEAL DT. 30-8-2008. EXT.P11 OBJECTION DT. 26-9-2008. EXT.P12 REPLY DT. 30-9-2008. EXT.P13 JUDGMENT IN MVAA NO. 509/08 DT. 4-11-08. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 35637 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 19th August, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner applied for a stage carriage permit in the inter- district route Chazoor-Guruvayoor-Ernakulam before the R.T.A., Thrissur. The R.T.A, Thrissur granted permit subject to counter signature by R.T.A., Ernakulam since part of the route lies within the jurisdiction of the R.T.A., Ernakulam. By Ext. P3 order, the R.T.A., Ernakulam granted counter signature. That counter signature was subject to the condition that the petitioner produces current records. The petitioner did not produce the current records within the prescribed period of 30 days. In the meanwhile, the petitioner's vehicle was garaged, as a result of which the petitioner could not obtain the fitness certificate which is one of the current records required to be produced. Therefore, the petitioner filed an application for maximum time for production of current records, as provided under Rule 159 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules. That application was rejected by Ext. P6 order on the ground that the petitioner was not present when the matter was considered by the R.T.A. The petitioner challenged Ext. P6 order before this Court by filing W.P(C) No. 11976/2008 primarily on the ground that the petitioner was not given notice of that meeting in which Ext. P6 order was passed. By Ext. P7 judgment, this Court found that there was no material to prove that the petitioner was given a notice regarding the meeting, in which Ext. P6 order was passed. Accordingly, Ext. P6 order was quashed by this Court and the R.T.A., Ernakulam was directed to re-consider the matter with notice to the petitioner and in accordance with law. Subsequent to the same, the petitioner was issued with Ext. P8 notice. The petitioner appeared for the meeting. But, by Ext. P9, instead of considering petitioner's application for maximum time as directed in Ext. P7 judgment, the R.T.A cancelled W.P.C. No. 35637/08 -: 2 :- the counter signature itself on the ground that part of the route overlaps a notified route. The petitioner challenged the said order before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. By Ext. P13 order, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. The petitioner is challenging Exts.P9 and P13 orders in this writ petition. 2. The petitioner's contention is that when this Court, by Ext. P7 judgment, directed the R.T.A to consider the application of the petitioner for maximum time to produce current records, the R.T.A had no jurisdiction to consider anything else particularly the question as to the validity of the earlier counter signature granted, that too, without putting the petitioner on notice as to the proposal for cancelling the counter signature already granted. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: “(i) to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for the records relating to Ext. P9 and Ext. P13 from respondents 1, 2 and 4 and quash the order Ext. P9 of the 1st respondent and Ext. P13 judgment of the 4th respondent as illegal and beyond jurisdiction. (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India declaring that by Ext. P3 order by which countersignature was granted by the 1st respondent the permit has been valid and effective on the entire route and the petitioner is entitled to operate on the entire route and to give appropriate direction to the 2nd respondent to allow the petitioner to operate on the entire route in the light of Ext. P3.” 3. The contention of the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents is that as is clear from Ext. P8, the subject for the meeting convened by the R.T.A pursuant to Ext. P7 judgment was to re-consider the application for grant of counter signature by R.T.A., Ernakulam. Therefore, it was certainly open to the R.T.A to consider the question as to whether the counter signature already granted was proper or not, which only has been done in Ext. P9 order. It is W.P.C. No. 35637/08 -: 3 :- contended by the learned Government Pleader that since part of the route overlaps a notified route, the R.T.A was justified in cancelling the counter signature. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. I note that prior to issuing Ext. P9, the R.T.A had, at no point of time, any case that the route in question overlaps a notified route. In fact, the respondents have no case that the route was notified between the time when the counter signature was granted and Ext. P9 order was passed cancelling the counter signature. Further, in W.P (C) No. 11976/2008 also, the R.T.A had no such case at all. What the R.T.A had contended before this Court in W.P(C) No. 11976/2008 was only that the petitioner was given notice before passing Ext. P6 order. In Ext. P6 order also, what the R.T.A had done was only to reject the request for allowing maximum time to produce current records since the petitioner was not present. If the R.T.A had a case that the counter signature had to be cancelled because part of the route overlaps a notified route, that would have been the first contention raised while arguing W.P(C) No. 11976/2008. Obviously, they have not, or even if they had raised the same, that was not accepted by this Court . When by Ext. P7 judgment, this Court directed the R.T.A to consider the application of the petitioner for granting maximum time, the R.T.A had a duty to comply with that direction by considering the application of the petitioner for maximum time and that application only. In Ext. P8 notice, the subject is mentioned thus: “Subject: To reconsider the application for the grant of countersignature of RTA, Ernakulam for the portion of the route which falls within its jurisdiction in respect of stage carriage KL 08 AE 413 to operate on the route Chazhoor-Guruvayoor-Ernakulam via. Triprayar, Vatanappally, Chettuva, Chavakkad, Guruvayur, Chavakkad, Chettuva, Vatanappally, Thriprayar, Perinjanam, Kodungallur, Paravoor, Koonammavu and Varapuzha as LSOS.” W.P.C. No. 35637/08 -: 4 :- There also, there is absolutely no mention about cancellation of the counter signature for overlapping of a notified route. That reason comes forth only while passing Ext. P9 order and in Ext. P9 order, the application for maximum time submitted by the petitioner has not been considered at all as directed by this Court in Ext. P7 judgment. It is trite law that a benefit already granted to a person cannot be taken back without granting an opportunity of being heard to that person. Here, a counter signature, which has already been granted, has been cancelled without even putting the person on notice. Therefore, clearly Ext. P9 order is liable to be quashed on all the above grounds. 6. In Ext. P13, the Tribunal has not even cared to consider these matters, which were most relevant in the appeal, which contentions were raised by the petitioner also. As such, the tribunal has misdirected himself in not considering the real issue involved in the appeal. For that reason, Ext. P13 order is also liable to be quashed. Accordingly, Exts.P9 and P13 orders are hereby quashed. The 1st respondent is directed to re-consider the application for maximum time submitted by the petitioner and pass orders thereon as directed in Ext. P7 judgment within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is allowed as above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/