Muraleedharan Pillai v. Regional Transport Authority Kollam

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM CR** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS** **MONDAY, THE 26[TH] DAY OF JULY 2021 / 4TH SRAVANA, 1943** ## **WP(C) NO. 6938 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONER/S:** MURALEEDHARAN PILLAI AGED 58 YEARS S/O. OMANAKUTTAN PILLAI, MAYA BHAVAN, KOTTAYIL, ODANAVATTOM, KOTTARAKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV O.D.SIVADAS ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN-691 001. 2 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM-691 001. 3 ANU C.K. S/O. KRISHNAN KUTTY PILLAI, KRISNAGIRI, PUNUKKNOOR, ALUMOODU P.O., KOTTARAKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR ## **OTHER PRESENT:** SR.GP BIMAL K NATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No.6938/2021 2 ## **JUDGMENT** The writ petitioner and the 3[rd] respondent are two stage carriage operators who ply their vehicles in the same route on the strength of valid permits. While so, the petitioner herein filed an application for revision of his timings, which was allowed by the Secretary, RTA, Kollam. Challenging that order, revision was filed by the third respondent herein as MVARP No.52/2018. Since there was delay in filing the above revision, MP No.349/2018 was filed to condone the delay, that had occurred in filing MVARP No.52/2018. Notice was issued to the petitioner herein who was arrayed as the third respondent in the revision. Though he received notice in MP No.349/2018 to appear on 29/9/2018, he remained absent. On that day, in the absence of the petitioner, delay was condoned, revision was heard and the case was taken for orders. Later, the revision was disposed of by order dated 12/10/2018. 2. The above order is assailed by the petitioner in this writ petition, inter alia, on the ground that the impugned order was not legally sustainable, in so far as the order in the revision petition was passed by the learned Tribunal without notice to the petitioner. The short point, on which the argument was advanced by both sides was whether after allowing the delay condonation application, the petitioner herein was entitled to fresh notice in MVARP No.52/2018. 3. There is no dispute that the notice was served on the petitioner W.P.(C) No.6938/2021 3 herein in MP No.349/2018. There is also no dispute that, the petitioner remained absent on the date of posting of M.P.No.349/2018 and on the same day, the revision was heard and taken for orders. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, the petitioner has received notice only in MP No.349/2018, notice received by him in that, is not produced to show that notice was only to appear in the delay con-donation application and not in the revision. Petitioner had also not asserted that he was not served with a composite notice, both in the delay condonation application as well as in the revision. Had a composite notice been issued to the respondent,there was absolutely no legal obligation on the Tribunal to issue fresh notice after service of notice in the delay condonation application. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in every proceedings, if the respondent remains absent, after service of notice in an application for condonation of delay, fresh notice is liable to be ordered by the court to the respondent to appear in appeal/revision. Applying the same analogy, learned counsel contended that, notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner herein has been served with notice in the delay condonation application, he ought to have been served with notice in revision/appeal since the respondent has the freedom to remain absent, if he did not have any objection regarding the grounds set up in the application for condonation of delay. Still, that does not imply that the respondent should not be issued a fresh notice in the further proceeding and cannot be W.P.(C) No.6938/2021 4 considered as a ground for dispensing notice. 5. Vehemently opposing the application, learned counsel for the third respondent contended that STAT Rules do not contemplate successive notices on the respondent at every stage. Rules, 11,13, and Rule 24 of the Kerala State Transport Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1988 were strongly relied on by the learned counsel for the third respondent. Rule 11 relates to the procedure for registration of appeal or revision petition. Rule provides that if an appeal or revision has been filed, the Tribunal shall fix a date for hearing and issue notice in Form D to the parties by registered post with acknowledgment due, in the address furnished in the revision or appeal. A copy of the appeal memorandum or revision petition or miscellaneous petition as the case may be, and the affidavit, if any, shall also be furnished to the respondent or respondents. Sub Rule (3) provides that respondent shall file a counter statement, if any, within 30 days from the date of receipt of notice. Rule 13 provides for issuing the process for hearing on the date on which the case is posted for hearing or to which date it is adjourned. Rule 24 relates to the service of notice. It provides that notice required to be issued under Rules shall be sent to the parties by registered post acknowledgment due in Form D. 6. A perusal of the various Rules clearly show that there is no specific provision under the Rules directing separate notices to be issued to the respondents in two different stages, while taking up the delay condonation application, as well as the main revision petition. There is no such specific W.P.(C) No.6938/2021 5 enabling provision. On the other hand, Form D is the only form of notice in the appeal and revision. Apart from Form D notice, there is no other prescribed Form. Form D coupled with Rule 11 indicates that same Form is prescribed for appeal, revision and miscellaneous petition. There is no separate Form for any miscellaneous application. In the above circumstances, it can clearly be held that in the absence of any specific enabling provision directing that the respondent shall be served with a separate notice in appeal/revision, he is not entitle to separate notice, even if he remains absent in the delay condonation application. 7. The above issue can be analysed in a different angle also. Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides that, in a case of appeal/ revision, the State Transport Appellate Authority shall not pass order under section 90 prejudicing any person without giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The question of reasonable opportunity of being heard to be granted, depends on the facts and circumstances of the case. In the absence of any specific provision or any guidelines issued by any other provision, the reasonable opportunity contemplated in the Act has to be reckoned on the basis of the remaining provisions of the statute. 8.His Lordship M.P.Menon J in _**Cheru Ouseph v. Kunju Pathuma**_ _**(1981 KLT 495)**_ had held that a statutory Tribunal vested with judicial or quasi judicial function must be deemed to enjoy all powers which are not specifically denied by the statute or statutory Rules for the proper exercise of its function. However, I feel that this is conditioned by at least two W.P.(C) No.6938/2021 6 requisites. Firstly, it can be brought to aid, only if no other provision of law applicable, expressly or impliedly restrict the exercise of such a power. Secondly, it can be used only for advancement of Justice and not for promoting procedural delays. 9. Applying the above also, both the above requisites are absent in the present situation. Firstly, the discussion above at paras 6 and 7 clearly show that the second notice is not only not contemplated, but there are indications to the contra. The second requisite also does not arise for the following reasons. 10. Rule 19 of the STAT Rules has fixed the time limit for disposal of appeal or revision. It provides that every appeal or revision shall ordinarily be heard and disposed of finally within four months from the date of filing. The very fact that an outer time limit has been prescribed for the disposal of the case has a considerable bearing on the question whether successive notices are liable to be issued to the respondent. Definitely, the STAT is a special Tribunal constituted with avowed object of deciding issues under the Motor Vehicles Act speedily and effectively. STAT being a creature of the statute, is governed by the specific Rules. Within the above, the court is competent to regulate its own procedure. It has also duty to ensure that the decision is taken at the earliest, without its function being controlled by the rigours of procedure. Any procedure which promotes unnecessary procedural requirements cannot be permitted. 11. Having considered the above, reasonable opportunity of being W.P.(C) No.6938/2021 7 heard under Rule 19 cannot be interpreted to hold that the respondent in every application is entitled to get successive notices in the delay condonation application as well as in appeal or revision, as the case may be. 12. Having considered in the above perspective, contention set up by the petitioner that he was entitled for second notice in appeal,even after receipt of the notice in the delay condonation application is only to be rejected. He remained absent after notice, at his peril. Hence, the writ petition is without any merits and accordingly it is dismissed. Sd/- **SUNIL THOMAS** **Judge** dpk W.P.(C) No.6938/2021 8 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6938/2021** PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TIME SHEET OF THE PETITIONER'S SERVICE ISSUED AS PER PROCEEDING DATED 13.3.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF MVARP NO.52 OF 2018 IS FILED BEFORE THE STAT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING OF THE STAT OBTAINED FROM THE WEBSITE. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE STAT IN MVARP NO.52 OF 2018 DATED 12.10.2018. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF TIMING CONFERENCE DATED 9.3.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT..R3(a): COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED ON 1/1/2020 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.R3(b): COPY OF THE NOTICE REGARDING TIMING CONFERENCE DATED 13/3/2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.