IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2009 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 9234 of 2008(Y) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- SHEEBA REJI, REJI BHAVAN, VELLOOR, PAMPADY, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. MR.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM. 3. SAJI THOMAS, PULLANAPPALLIL, S.H. MOUNT P.O., KOTTAYAM. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.R.SREELATHA R3 BY ADV. SRI.M.A.FAYAZ THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO. 9234/2008-Y APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 30/05/2006 GRANTING REGULAR PERMIT IN FAVOUR OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 09/03/2007 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER ON 22/06/2007. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE REVISION MEMORANDUM FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE S.T.A.T. DATED 30/08/2007. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT WITH DELAY PETITION (M.P.NO.2086/2007) FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE S.T.A.T. DATED 30/08/2007. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN M.P.NO.2086/2007 DATED 22/10/2007. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE S.T.A.T. IN M.P.NO.2086/2007 DATED 04/12/2007. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rs/ ANTONY DOMINIC, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 9234 of 2008 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 30th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT Challenge in this writ petition is against Exhibits P2 and P6. 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that by Exhibit P1 proceedings dated 30/5/2006 of the first respondent, the 3rd respondent was granted a regular permit in the route mentioned therein. Petitioner's case is that the 3rd respondent did not produce current records within the time permitted under Rule 159 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules and therefore, the permit automatically became ineffective by virtue of judgment of this Court in Seethal Vs. R.T.A, Trichur [2003(3) KLT 357]. 3. Petitioner states that after a long lapse of time, the 3rd respondent made an application for extension of time as contemplated under Rule 159 of the Rules. It is stated that the said application came up for orders before the first respondent on 9/03/2007, when the petitioner objected to the maintainability of the application. The fact that the petitioner objected to the application is seen admitted by the 3rd respondent in Exhibit P5, the counter affidavit filed by him W.P.(C) No. 9234/ 2008 2 before the STAT, about which reference will be made later. 4. Irrespective of the objections raised, by Exhibit P2 order dated 9/03/2008 itself, the RTA passed an order ‘heard allowed’. A reading of the order shows that none of the contentions raised by either of the parties have been dealt with while passing the said order. It is the admitted position that in pursuance to Exhibit P2, current records were produced by the 3rd respondent only on 12/6/2007. 5. In the meanwhile, aggrieved by Exhibit P2, the petitioner filed Exhibit P3 revision before the Tribunal along with Exhibit P4, an application for condoning delay in filing the petition. In the revision, the 3rd respondent filed Exhibit P5 counter affidavit, where he has admitted that the petitioner objected to his application for extension of time, and he produced current records only on 12/6/2007. In this context, it is to be said that this counter also gives the impression that he has proceeded on the basis that the petitioner was fighting against the grant of permit. 6. Parties were heard and by Exhibit P6 order passed by W.P.(C) No. 9234/ 2008 3 the Tribunal, the revision petition was declined to be considered and on that basis revision was rejected. A reading of order discloses that the Tribunal also proceeded on the basis that the revision was against the grant of permit and on that basis held that revision was not maintainable since the petitioner lacks locus standi to object to the grant of the impugned permit, in view of the Full Bench judgment of this court in Binu Chacho Vs. RTA, Pathanamthitta [2006(2)KLT 172]. It is in these circumstances, this writ petition is filed seeking to quash Exhibits P2 and P6. 7. In so far as Exhibit P2 is concerned, as already stated it is the admitted position that the petitioner only challenges the maintainability of the application for extension of time. However, order shows that it is a laconic one without any reason whatsoever and the contentions raised by both sides have not been dealt with. Therefore, this order cannot be sustained. 8. Now, coming to Exhibit P6, the order passed by the Tribunal dismissing Exhibit P4 application for condoning delay and consequently Exhibit P3 revision, this order also shows that the Tribunal proceeded under the mistaken impression that what was W.P.(C) No. 9234/ 2008 4 under challenge was the grant of permit to the 3rd respondent. It is on that basis, the Tribunal concluded that the petitioner lacked locus standi to challenge the grant. The contest of the petitioner is only against the extension of time and not against the grant of permit as wrongly assumed by the Tribunal. Exhibit P6 order of the Tribunal shows that the Tribunal has mis-directed itself while considering Exhibit P3 revision and Exhibit P4 application for condoning delay. Therefore, for aforesaid reasons, both Exhibits P2 and P6 itself deserves to be set aside and I do so. In the circumstances, I feel that the matter needs to be reconsidered by the first respondent. 9. Counsel for the 3rd respondent contended that though Exhibit P1 is dated 30/5/2006, proceedings were received by him belatedly and that application which was considered on 9/3/2007 was filed by him within the time permitted under Rule 159 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules. However, there are matters for the RTA to consider and there are no materials in this case to decide this issue. 10. In view of the above, I direct the RTA to reconsider W.P.(C) No. 9234/ 2008 5 the application made by the 3rd respondent for extension of time with notice to both the petitioner and the 3rd respondent and in the light of the observations made above. 11. It is informed that on the strength of regular permit granted to him, the 3rd respondent is now operating. Thus he may continue until final order is passed by the RTA as directed above and depending upon the final orders passed, if necessary, the RTA will pass revised orders in the matter. Orders shall be passed by the RTA on the application filed by the 3rd respondent as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within three months of production of copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE scm