Fazil N.P. v Regional Transport Authority Kozhikode & Others

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V WEDNESDAY, THE 8 [ TH ] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 19TH MAGHA, 1944 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 35610 OF 2022`** ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` FAZIL N.P, AGED 43 YEARS S/O AHAMMED,28/1123, NAITHUKULANGARA HOUSE, CHEVAYUR P.O.,KOZHIKODE-673 037. BY ADVS. SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL ASWATHY BABU ``` ``` RESPONDENTS: ``` ``` 1 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY KOZHIKODE, COLLECTORATE COMPLEX, KOZHIKODE-WAYANAD ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673 620. 2 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOZHIKODE, COLLECTORATE COMPLEX, KOZHIKODE-WAYANAD ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673620. 3 MOHAMMED ASLAM, THETTAN, PALAKUNDIL HOUSE, POTHUVETTIPARA, THAVANUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 573. BY ADV K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR SRI TR RENJITH SR GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 35610 OF 2022 ``` ``` : 2 : ``` ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner states that the petitioner is the holder of a regular permit and entitled to operate on the route Nilambur (Starting point) - Mavoor (Termini) using Stage Carriage No. KL-51A-7384, which was later replaced with KL-11S-5949. In terms of Ext.P2 proceedings, the Secretary, RTA, has issued a set of timings to the petitioner to carry out the trip. The 3rd respondent is the registered owner of a stage carriage bearing Reg. No.KL-14H-1116 and the said vehicle is also operating with a fixed set of timings. 2. While so, the 3rd respondent submitted an application for revision of timings before the 2nd respondent. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P5 judgment, a timing conference was convened. The petitioner submitted a written objection to the proposal for changing the departure time. The 2nd respondent, after taking note of the objections, rejected the application for revision of timings by Ext.P7 order. The fact that 25 operators participated in the timing conference and written objections were submitted by seven operators, including the petitioner, find a place in Ext.P7. ``` WP(C) NO. 35610 OF 2022 ``` ``` : 3 : ``` 3. The 3rd respondent challenged Ext.P7 order by preferring a revision petition before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal without impleading any of the objectors. The Appellate Tribunal, without considering the facts of the case in its proper perspective and without appreciating the tenor of objections raised by the objectors, by Ext.P9 order quashed Ext.P7 and directed the 2nd respondent to reconsider the matter and settle timings afresh. Based on Ext.P9, the RTA , Kozhikode has issued Ext.P10 notice proposing to convene a timing conference. It is in the above backdrop that this writ petition is filed seeking to quash Exts.P9 and P10 and for a declaration that Ext.P9 order issued by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal without hearing the objectors cannot be sustained under law. 4. Sri. Sajeev Kumar K. Gopal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that having filed a detailed objection before the RTA, the 3rd respondent was bound to implead the petitioner and other objectors. It is further submitted that Ext.P9 order has been passed in clear violation to the principles of natural justice, as the affected parties were not heard. The 2nd respondent rightly held that the existing timing need not be revised as it may lead to unhealthy competition. ``` WP(C) NO. 35610 OF 2022 ``` ``` : 4 : ``` 5. Sri. K.V.Gopinathan Nair, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent, submitted that a perusal of the proceedings dated 14.06.2022 of the secretary would reveal that all that is stated is that the proposed timings submitted by the applicant are in direct clash with many existing operators. Nothing more is stated. Even the name and other details of the objectors were not stated in the order. The Appellate Tribunal took note of the fact that the claim of the 3rd respondent and the objections raised by the objectors were not considered in detail by the Secretary. According to the learned counsel, as no finding in favour of the 3rd respondent was passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and as it is an open remand for fresh consideration after hearing all concerned, the petitioners cannot claim that they are aggrieved. Reliance is placed on a judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge in the judgment dated 10.11.2017 in W.P.(C) No.19169 of 2017 to substantiate his contention. 6. I have considered the submissions advanced. 7. In the order passed by the RTA, after narrating that objections have been received from registered owners of certain stage carriages, the RTA has proceeded to state as follows: ``` WP(C) NO. 35610 OF 2022 ``` ``` : 5 : ``` “It is learned from the timing conference that the proposed timings submitted by the applicant are in direct clash with many existing operators and can lead to unhealthy competition and loss of peace and harmony now existing in this sector.” Thereafter, after reiterating the principles in **Subhash Chandra v. State of UP[ 1 ]** , the Secretary rejected the application for revision of timings. 8. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, after perusing the order passed by the Secretary, found that the Secretary had not considered the claim of the petitioner and the objections in a proper manner and had remanded the matter for fresh consideration with notice to all concerned. No finding has been rendered in favor of the 3rd respondent for the petitioner to be aggrieved by such an order. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent, the names and other details of the objectors were not available in the order issued by the Secretary. As an open remand has been made with a further direction to hear all concerned before issuing a fresh order, it cannot be said that the petitioner is aggrieved by the said order. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that the petitioner has not made out any case for interference. > 1 [ (1980) 2 SCC 324] ``` WP(C) NO. 35610 OF 2022 : 6 : ``` This writ petition is accordingly disposed of, directing the 2nd respondent to expedite the matter in terms of the directions issued by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in terms of Ext.P9 order. **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE** PS/7/2/2023 ``` WP(C) NO. 35610 OF 2022 ``` ``` : 7 : ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 35610/2022`** ## **`PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS`** ``` Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT OF THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF VEHICLE BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KL51A-7384. ``` - `Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE SECRETARY RTA, MALAPPURAM VIDE ORDER NO.C6/D3/1122/2013/M DATED 06-12-2013.` - `Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE TIMINGS BY WHICH THE VEHICLE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT OPERATES ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.` - `Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR REVISION OF TIMINGS BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 14-02-2022.` - `Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28-03-2022 IN W.P.(C) NO.10502 OF 2022.` - `Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 07-06-2022.` - `Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P-6.` - `Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE NO. C1/5835/2022 DATED 14-06-2022.` ``` Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 35610 OF 2022 : 8 : ``` ``` Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN M.V.A.R.P.NO.79/2022 DATED 20-07-2022. ``` ``` Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY RTA FOR TIMING CONFERENCE. ``` ``` Exhibit P10 A THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P-10. ``` //True copy// PS to Judge