WA No. 280 of 2022 (Against the Judgment in WP(C) No.4589 of 2022) Mahesh Nambiampurath v. Sakeer M. T. and others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY FRIDAY, THE 12[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 21ST SRAVANA, 1944 ## WA NO. 280 OF 2022 [AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.4589/2022 DATED 17-02-2022] ## **APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT IN WP(C):** MAHESH NAMBIAMPURATH, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN, MECHERI NAYAR KUZHIYIL HOUSE, THIRUTHIMMAL THAZHAM, PANTHEERANKAVU, KOZHIKODE - 673 008. BY ADV. SRI. K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR ## **RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 IN WP(C):** - 1 SAKEER M. T., 42 YEARS, S/O. MAMMU, SAJ MAHAL, P.O.POKKUNU, KOZHIKODE - 673 007. 2 MOIDEEN KOYA, S/O.ALAVI, KANIYARAKKAL HOUSE, KARANTHUR P.O., PANTHEERANKAVU, KOZHIKODE - 673 571. 3 MUHASIN C.P., S/O.ABDUL AZEEZ, CHERIYAPARAMBATH HOUSE, P.O.PANTHEERANKAVU, KOZHIKODE-673 008. 4 MUHAMMED SHAFFIQUE, MANNIL THODI, VAIDYARANGADI, MARASA ROAD, RAMANATTUKKARA, KOZHIKODE - 673 633. - 5 ABDUL NISSAR, POTTAMMAL HOUSE, P.O.PANTHEERANKAVU, KOZHIKODE - 673 008. 6 NOUSHAD ALI, PATTARTHUNILAM, POKKUNNU, KOZHIKODE - 673 007. - 7 K. BASHEER, KOLAKATH, POOLENKARA, P.O.PANTHEERANKAVU, KOZHIKODE - 673 008. 8 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, KOZHIKODE-673 020 **WA:280/2022** **2** 9 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, KOZHIKODE-673 020. R1 TOR7 BY ADV. SRI.P. DEEPAK R8 & R9 BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER SRI. V. TEK CHAND THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **WA:280/2022** **3** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **S. Manikumar, CJ** Instant writ appeal is preferred by respondent No.3 in W.P.(C) No.4589 of 2022 against the judgment dated 17.02.2022, by which a learned single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by respondents 1 to 7/ writ petitioners, who are stage carriage operators holding regular permits, and quashed the order of State Transport Appellate Tribunal in M.P. No.37/2022 in M.V.A.R.P. No.5/2022 dated 24.01.2022 (Exhibit-P9) and proceedings of the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Kozhikode, 9[th] respondent, dated 2.2.2022 (Exhibit-P10). ## 2. Operative portion of the impugned judgment is reproduced: “8. Before the Tribunal, the third respondent has sought for issuance of the timings that were proposed by him before this Court. In the timing conference held pursuant to the directions of this Court, the second respondent found the proposed timings to be not feasible in view of the direct timings clashes with other operators. The directions of this Court was only an interim arrangement till the final settlement of timings. The timings were finally settled as per Ext.P6. It could not be disputed that the proceeding before this Court in W.P.(C) No.30754/2021 was in view of the nonsettling of his timings in a timing conference. This Court directed issuance of permit with the timings proposed by the third respondent within a period of ten days. The direction of this Court was also purely a fill-in arrangement till his timings are settled in a regular timing conference. The second respondent convened a timing conference within a period of ten days and did finally settle the timings of the **WA:280/2022** **4** third respondent under Ext.P6. Under such circumstances, the directions given by this Court in W.P.(C) No.30754/2021 worked itself out. But, before the Tribunal direction is sought for issuance of provisional/proposed timings, referring to the directions of this Court in W.P.(C) No.30754/2021. The Tribunal was pleased to grant an interim order to grant the provisional/proposed timings. The second respondent found the timings to be in direct conflict with the timings of the other existing operators. Suffice to notice that, the direction given by the Tribunal (Ext.P9) to issue the timings proposed by the third respondent is unsustainable. Consequential order passed (Ext.P10) by the second respondent also cannot be sustained. 9. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Exts.P9 and P10 orders are quashed. In order to have a quietus to the whole issue it is ordered that, the second respondent shall convene a timing conference for settling the timings of the third respondent with due notice to the petitioners, the third respondent, and other rival operators, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It shall be open for the second respondent to have the meeting held by virtual mode if the circumstances so warrant. Pending such settlement of timings, the third respondent shall be permitted to operate with Ext.P6 timings which were already settled by the second respondent.” 3. Facts leading to the filing of instant appeal are that ; appellant is the 3[rd] respondent in the writ petition. Respondents 1 to 7 have filed the writ petition challenging Exhibit-P9 interim order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam in M.P. No.37/2022 in M.V.A.R.P No.5/2022 dated 24.01.2022, a statutory Revision filed by the appellant against Exhibit-P6 order dated 12.01.2022 passed by the Secretary, **WA:280/2022** **5** Regional Transport Authority, Kozhikode. As per Exhibit-P9, the Secretary, RTA, Kozhikode, 9[th] respondent herein, was directed to issue Exhibit-P3 set of timings to the appellant herein, for a period of two months, so as to operate service on the route Pantheerankavu-Malabar Botanical GardenRamanattukara-Medical College in respect of stage carriage bearing No. KL57/G 9521. 4. Appellant has also stated that Exhibit-P10 is an order passed by the 9[th] respondent dated 2.2.2022 consequent to Exhibit-P9 order of the STAT, by which, the set of timings for the period from 24.01.2022 to 23.03.2022 was granted. 5. Appellant has further contended that by the impugned judgment, the statutory revision petition itself has become infructuous, which is not permissible under law and affects his legal and legitimate claims. 6. Appellant has further stated that he was granted regular permit as per Exhibit-P1 proceedings of the RTA dated 3.2.2021, subject to settlement of timings. Since the timing conference was scheduled on three occasions, it was adjourned, without any reason. Hence, he filed W.P.(C) No.30754 of 2021 before this Court and by Exhibit-P4 judgment 31.12.2021, a learned single Judge directed the 9[th] respondent - Secretary, **WA:280/2022** **6** RTA, Kozhikode, to issue the permit by accepting the provisional set of timings suggested as per Exhibit-P3 therein, within ten days. Instead of complying with the said direction, respondent No.9 issued Exhibit-P6 timings, after hearing certain operators. According to the appellant, by Exhibit-P6 proceedings dated 12.01.2022, the Secretary, RTA reduced the number of trips allowed by the Regional Transport Authority in a most arbitrary and illegal manner. 7. Hence, challenging Exhibit-P6 order of the 9[th] respondent dated 12.01.2022, appellant filed Exhibit-P7 statutory revision before the Tribunal on 22.01.2022, and the Tribunal, by Exhibit-R3(c) order in M.P. No.38/2022 in MVARP No.5 of 2022 dated 24.01.2022, stayed Exhibit-P6 for a period of two months. By Exhibit-P9 order dated 24.01.2022 in M.P. No.37/2022, the Tribunal directed the 9[th] respondent to issue the timings as directed by this Court, for a period of two months, and the case stands posted to 28.03.2022. Aggrieved by Exthibit-P9 and the consequential order Exhibit-P10 dated 2.2.2022, W.P.(C) No.4589/2022 has been filed seeking the following reliefs: - (i) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or such other writ, order or directing, calling for the records leading to Exhibits-P9 and P10 and quash the same; **WA:280/2022** **7** - (ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or such other writ order or direction commanding the 2[nd] respondent to forthwith convene a timing conference with notice to the 3[rd] respondent and all interested operators, including the petitioners herein, and settle the timings in compliance with Exhibit-P1 decision of the 1[st] respondent untrammeled by Exhibit-P9 order of the STAT and Exhibit-P10 proceedings. 8. Before the writ court, respondents 1 to 7 have contended that now to compound the issue beyond all proportions, State Transport Appellate Tribunal, on Exhibit-P8 application, has passed the following order: “Heard, The 2[nd] respondent (Secretary, RTA) is directed to grant temporary permit to the petitioner for a period of two months on the route Pantheerankavu-RamanattukaraMedical College in respect of stage carriage KL-57/G 9521.” 9. They have also contended before the writ court that the STAT has exceeded its jurisdiction and directed to grant temporary permit, even without an application submitted by the appellant/3[rd] respondent and even without any relief claimed by the said operator. 10. Refuting the averments in the writ petition, appellant has filed a counter affidavit dated 15.02.2022, wherein it was contended as under: - A. It is respectfully submitted that Exhibit P9 order is not for issuance of any temporary permit and the petitioners did not properly adverted to the said order. In Exhibit P9 interim order dated 24.1.2022, the direction to the 2[nd] **WA:280/2022** **8** respondent "to grant temporary permit" was a mistake made by the Tribunal, and it was corrected by the Tribunal itself as per order in M.P No: 56/2022 dated 29.1.2022 as "issue Exhibit P3 timings" to the petitioners for a period of 2 months. This correction made by the Tribunal is clearly shown in Exhibit P9 order itself. - B. According to the 3[rd] respondent, Exhibit-P10 proceedings is not for issuing any temporary permit, whereas, the same is only for issuing timings as directed by the Tribunal. Therefore, the writ petitioners, in a most illegal and irresponsible manner, without properly adverting to the real facts and materials, made the contentions in this writ petition, which are really an abuse of process of Court and hence, not entitled for any relief sought in the writ petition. - C. According to the 3[rd] respondent, the writ petition is filed on a totally wrong presumption and without disclosing the clear and true facts. When the revision petition is pending before the STAT, writ petitioners filed the writ petition without any merits and _bona fides._ Except the vague statement that they are the existing operators, they did not state how they are affected in any manner by the issuance of Exhibit-P10 timings. - D. It was further contended that the contentions in paragraph (8) of the writ petition that the timing conference scheduled to 21.12.2021 was postponed to the third week of January was known to all is absolutely wrong. According to the 3[rd] **WA:280/2022** **9** respondent, in Exhibit P2 notice, the intimation was only regarding adjourning the conference, without fixing a date. Therefore, on 27.12.2021, the 3[rd] respondent approached this Court by filing writ petition W.P(C) No.30754/2021, since the 2[nd] respondent did not convene the meeting on 21.12.2021. This court disposed of the writ petition on 31.12.2021, after getting instruction from the 2[nd] respondent. There was no contention that the meeting is scheduled to 18.01.2022. The same is only on 4.1.2022 as could be evident from Exhibit P3 notice itself. E. It was further stated that the further contention of the writ petitioners in paras (12) and (13) of the writ petition that Exhibit P3 notice modifying the proposed timings was not issued to the 2[nd] respondent earlier is absolutely incorrect. When the then Secretary, RTA, requested to suggest a feasible set of timings for consideration in the conference for operation of the service, the respondent submitted Exhibit P3 proposed timings which has been received and he himself endorsed the same on 16.11.2021 and forward to the section, as could be revealed from Exhibit P5 herein itself. Therefore, according to the 3[rd] respondent, the contention of the writ petitioners that the said timings was given before this Court at the first time is absolutely wrong. - F. The contention in paragraph 17, regarding the observation of the 2[nd] respondent is totally incorrect and without any merits because, the same is made only to help the existing **WA:280/2022** **10** operators without any regard to the finding in Exhibit P1 itself and without any materials also. As submitted above, the petitioner did not properly adverted to Exhibit P9 order of the Tribunal and the further statement of facts proceeded in the Writ petition is based on wrong presumption. - G. It is to be noticed that none of the persons are arrayed as objectors or participants in Exhibit-P6 order dated 12.01.2022. The respondents1 to 7/writ petitions are not at all aggrieved persons at present since no final order is arrived at by the Tribunal in the Revision Petition. Moreover, the challenge before the Tribunal is Exhibit P6, which is the time schedule wrongly allotted to the 3[rd] respondent and not regarding the timings of any other operator. Therefore, even if the writ petitioners have any apprehension that it would affect them, the appropriate remedy was to approach the Tribunal and not by filing writ petition. - H. The interim order only directed implementation of Exhibit P4 judgment of this Court which became final. The writ petitioners cannot invalidate the revision petition filed before the Tribunal through indirect method. So long as Exhibit P6 is not sustainable, Exhibit P4 judgment of this Court holds the field and the 3[rd] respondent is entitled to operate his stage carriage with Exhibit P10 timings. But, because of the interim order issued by this Court, the 3[rd] respondent has to stop the service, causing irreparable **WA:280/2022** **11** injury and loss, and also inconvenience to the traveling public. He precisely admitted that Exhibit-P6 order dated 12/01/2022 is unsustainable and without jurisdiction. This is evident from the prayer in the writ petition seeking fresh timing conference for settlement of timings. The writ petitioners cannot insist for the operation of appellant’s service with Exhibit-P6 timings, which is already stayed by the STAT. - I. It was further contended that writ petitioners have obtained the interim order directing to operate with Exhibit-P6 timings in the writ petition, suppressing the fact that Exhibit-P6 order stands stayed by the Tribunal as per Exhibit-R3(c). According to the respondent, writ petitioners cannot insist to restore an illegal order in this writ petition and, hence, the entire contentions of the writ petitioners are unsustainable. The said order only direct issuance of timings which is perfectly within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and is in consonance with the directions of this Court in ExhibitP4 judgment. - J. It is finally contended that the contention of the writ petitioners with regard to the failure on their part to implead in the revision petition is absolutely wrong and without any merits and substance. According to the 3[rd] respondent, they are not entitled to seek interference of this Court when a statutory revision petition is pending before this Court and that their remedy was to get themselves **WA:280/2022** **12** impleaded in the revision petition, if they chose. According to respondent No.3, Exhibit-P6 order is illegal and unsustainable and that the 3[rd] respondent is entitled to continue the service with Exhibit-P10 timings. 11. After hearing both parties, writ court, by impugned judgment, disposed of the writ petition quashing Exhibits-P9 and P10 order, and issuing the directions, as extracted supra. Being aggrieved, instant writ appeal is filed by the appellant. 12. The contention of the appellant is that the learned single Judge did not advert to the facts with respect to compliance of Exhibit-P4 judgment dated 31.12.2021 in W.P.(C) No.30754 of 2021 and that as per the said judgment, the 9[th] respondent was duty bound to issue the timings as directed on or before 10.01.2022. 13. It is also contended that in order to comply with the said direction within the stipulated time, conference was advanced to 12.01.2022, which according to the appellant, is without any merits and with the intention of defeating the earlier judgment of the learned single Judge ((Exhibit-P11). 14. Appellant has also contended that the finding of the learned single Judge that the direction given by this Court has been worked out **WA:280/2022** **13** itself by passing Exhibit-P6 order is absolutely incorrect and unsustainable. Learned counsel for the appellant also pointed out that Exhibit-P9 was only an interim order and there was no justification for the respondents/writ petitioners to approach this Court and that the learned single Judge ought to have dismissed the writ petition since the appropriate remedy is to contest the same before the Tribunal. 15. That apart, it is contended by the appellant that the findings of the learned single Judge in the impugned judgment are against the settled proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Gadde Venkateswara Rao** v. **Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.** (AIR 1966 SC 828), **Chintamani Saran Nath Shahdeo** v. **State of Bihar and Ors.** [(1999) 8 SCC 16], and **Abdul Hameed** v. **State of Kerala** [1988 (1) KLT 446]. 16. It is also contended that the learned single Judge by quashing the impugned orders of the Tribunal, directed restoration of an illegal order, that too, when statutory revision is pending in which the said order has been stayed, and it was not under challenge in the writ petition. According to the appellant, though Exhibit-P6 order dated 12.1.2022 passed by the Secretary, RTA, Kozhikode is totally illegal and unsustainable, the STAT **WA:280/2022** **14** was perfectly justifiable in passing Exhibit-P9 order. The sum and substance of the contention advanced by the appellant is that since ExhibitP4 judgment in W.P.(C) No.30754 of 2021 dated 31.12.2021, itself holds the field and governs the issue, the appellant is entitled to continue the service on the basis of Exhibit-P10 order dated 2.2.2022. 17. That apart, it is contended that the averments contained in the counter affidavit filed before the writ court were not taken into consideration while rendering the impugned judgment. 18. Based on the above pleadings, Mr. K.V. Gopinathan Nair, learned counsel for the appellant, made submissions. 19. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 20. Exhibit-P3 is the notice issued by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Kozhikode, 9[th] respondent, and it reads thus: ## “Notice Adjourned timing of bus KL 57 G 9521 plying service on the route Pantheerankavu - Malabar Botanical Garden - Ramanattukara - Medical College via Kunnathupalam, Konthanari, Arapuzha Palam, Ramanattukara, Thondayadu and Kovoor is decided to reschedule to 18.01.2002 at IDTR Chevayur on 12 p.m., as offline. Sd/Secretary, Regional Transport Authority Kozhikode 4/1/2022 **WA:280/2022** **15** 21. Exhibit-P4 is the judgment dated 31.12.2021 passed in W.P.(C) No.30754 of 2021 wherein the 9[th] respondent herein was directed to permit to the appellant herein by accepting the provisional timings offered by him in Exhibit-P3 proposed set of timings, within ten days from 31.12.2021. 22. Exhibit-P5 is the order No.G1/2651/2020/D dated 12.01.2022 passed by the 9[th] respondent and it reads thus:- ## “ **Order No.G1/2651/2020/D Dated 12.01.2022** As per the directions received from the Honourable High Court of Kerala vide Judgement in WPC 30754/2021 to issue a regular permit to the stage carriage KL57G9521 by accepting the provisional timings offered by the petitioner within 10 days and further it is made clear that the issuance of the permit with the provisional timing will not confer any right on the petitioner to insist on the same timings at the time of conference to be convened by the respondent. The Judgment was received at this authority on 05.01.2022. Hence, convened a timing conference to sort out time clash between existing operators on the route to avoid unhealthy competition on 12/01/2022 by issuing proper notice to the applicant, KSRTC, and existing operators on the route Ramanattukara Pantheerankavu-MCH and Malabar botanical Garden. Out of 20 trips proposed by the applicant, only 6 trips are touching Malabar Botanical Garden, all other trips are passing through Ramanattukara-PantheerankavuMedical college route which is a well-served sector. 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. **WA:280/2022** **16** In **Subhash Chandra V State of UP [(1980)2 SCC 324] the Apex court held that the provisions under Motor Vehicles Act,are geared for public safety and not for private profit and casts a duty upon the authorities to protect Indian lives moving in buses walking on roads or even standing on margins. So the Motor Vehicles Act has been enacted not for granting benefits to transport operators but with an object of preventing unhealthy competitions between transporters one among the host of other issues relating to Motor Vehicles and Transport** . Hence, this Authority by considering all objections and facts raised by those who attended the timing conference issued the following set of timings to operate the stage carriage KL57G9521 on the route Ramanattukara-PantheerankavuMCH and Malabar botanical Garden. The direction from the Honourable High Court has complied herewith.” 23. In the statement of facts filed before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam, dated 22.01.2022, appellant has stated that RTA considered the application along with the trips and timings in its meeting held on 3.2.2021 and found that the proposed route is not adequately served by stage carriages and thereby granted regular permit. The 1[st] respondent - Regional Transport Authority, accepted the trips sought by the appellant and granted the same subject to settlement of timings. It was also stated therein that since the proposed timings was suggested about two years back and slight modification in the proposed timing became necessary, in order to avoid clash of timings, the appellant filed modified time schedule by making slight modification for the feasible **WA:280/2022** **17** operation of the service. 24. Before the Tribunal, appellant has further stated that though it was the duty of the 9[th] respondent to issue the regular permit with ExhibitP3 timings, the timing conference which was scheduled on 18.01.2022 is preponed to 12.1.2020, clearly with an intention to defeat Exhibit-P4 judgment. Thereafter, the 2[nd] respondent convened a conference on 12.1.2022, by which, certain interested persons appeared and at their instance, the 9[th] respondent, who has absolutely no jurisdiction to reduce the number of trips which has already been approved by the RTA, issued the impugned order denying two trips. He also contended that the respondent passed the order impugned therein, contrary to the decision of the RTA and without jurisdiction. 25. In the above circumstances, appellant before the STAT, has prayed as hereunder: “For these and other grounds to be submitted at the time of hearing, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to allow the revision petition, set aside the impugned order and direct the 2[nd] respondent to issue Exhibit.P3 proposed timings in compliance with the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in Exhibit-P2 judgment, in the interest of justice. The petitioner also prays for any other direction or order which this Honourble Tribunal deem fit in the circumstances of the case.” **WA:280/2022** **18** ## 26. Exhibit-P9 order passed by the STAT in M.P. No.37/2022 in MVARP No.5/2022 dated 24.01.2022 reads thus: ## **ORDER** Heard. The 2[nd] respondent is directed to grant temporary permit to the petitioner for a period of two months as soas to operate service on the route Pantheerankavu - Malabar Botanical Garden - Ramanattukara - Medical College in respect of stage carriage KL-57/G 9521. Pronounced in Open Tribunal on this the 24[th] day of January, 2022. ## Honey M Varghese State Transport Appellate Tribunal” ## 27. Exhibit-P10 is the consequential Order No.1762/2022 dated ## 2.2.2022 passed by the Secretary, RTA, 9[th] respondent, and it reads thus: ## **ORDER NO.1762/2022 DATED 02/02/2022** As per the direction received from the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala vide Judgement in WPC 30754/2021 to issue a regular permit to the stage carriage **KL57G9521** to operate on the route Pantheerankavu - Malabar Botanical GardenRamanattukara - Medical College Hospital via Kunnathupalam - Konthanari - Arapuzha Palam - Ramanattukara Airport Road Jn. Hilite Mall - Thondayadu and Kovoor as ordinary. Accordingly, timing conference was conducted on 12.01.2022 and settled the timing and issued proceedings. As per reference (3) cited the Hon'ble State Transport Appellate Tribunal directed to issue Ext.-P3 timings (ie. Copy of proposed timings) to the petitioner for a period of two months so as to operate service on the route Pantheernakavu-Botanical Garden-Ramanattukara-Medical **WA:280/2022** **19** College in respect of stage carriage KL 57 G 9521. As per MP No.38/2022 in MVARP No.5/2022 the impugned order stayed the set of timings issued reference (5) cited issued by this authority. Hence, I the Secretary, RTA, Kozhikode in obedience to the order from Hon'ble STAT and under delegated powers vested up on me hereby issue a set of timings for period 24/01/2022 to 23/03/2022 exhibited as P3 attached to above orders. Order for Hon'ble STAT is complied herewith: ## TIMINGS |Pantheerankav<br>u|Pantheerankav<br>u|Ramanattukar<br>a|Ramanattukar<br>a|Medical<br>College|Medical<br>College|Malabar Botanical|Malabar Botanical| |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| |A|D|A|D|A|D|A|D| ||4.50|||||5.03|5.05| |||5.38|5.45|6.30|6.41||| |||7.26|7.32|8.17|9.40||| |||10.25|10.31|11.16|11.25|12.03|12.35| |||||01.05|02.56||| |||3.41|3.45|4.30|4.32|5.10|.5.14| |||||5.52|6.10||| |||6.55|7.05|7.50|8.15||| |||9.00|9.05||||| |9.25<br>halt|||||||| Sd/Secretary, RTA, Kozhikode //True Copy// ## Endorsement No.C4/1919/2022 Certified copy of proceedings of time sheet in respect of KL 57 G 9521 issued to Sri. Sakkeer M T., Saj Mahal, Pudukkudi Paramba, Pokkunnu, Kozhikode-673007 to produce before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam. Secretary, R.T.A., Kozhikode.” 28. The sole question emerging for consideration in this appeal is whether any interference is required to the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge. **WA:280/2022** **20** 29. In fact, Exhibit-P6 timings provided by the Secretary, RTA, Kozhikode, are under challenge in a revision petition before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. However, consequent to the impugned judgment, the revision preferred by the appellant has virtually become inconsequential and redundant. According to the learned single Judge, direction issued by this court in Exhibit-P4 judgment dated 31.12.2021 in W.P.(C) No.30754 of 2021 was in view of the non-settlement of timings of the appellant in a timing conference and the direction that the timings suggested by the 3[rd] respondent/appellant herein were directed to be considered within a period of ten days, is only a temporary arrangement, till his timings are settled in a regular timing conference. 30. Therefore, the aspect weighed with the learned single Judge was that STAT should not have passed the impugned interim order (Exhibit-P9) directing to issue the proposed timings. It was also observed in the said judgment that the Secretary, RTA, Kozhikode, 9[th] respondent herein, has found the timings to be in direct conflict with the timings of the other existing operators. It was for the aforesaid reason, the timings proposed by the appellant herein were directed to be granted, by way of an interim order was found unsustainable and the consequential order Exhibit-P10 **WA:280/2022** **21** dated 2.2.2022 passed by the 9[th] respondent granting the set of timings proposed by the appellant cannot be sustained. 31. Learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 7/writ petitioners advanced arguments in support of the findings and directions contained in the impugned judgment. 32. In our considered opinion, this writ appeal can be disposed of directing the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam, to dispose of the revision petition itself, especially due to the fact that the interim order granted was for a period of two months to issue a time schedule with the timings proposed by the appellant, which is already over. Apart from the same, operation of the impugned order was stayed by the Tribunal pending consideration of the revision. On the other hand, if the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge is sustained, the statutory revision pending before the Tribunal would become meaningless. 33. However, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 7/writ petitioners submitted that they are not made parties in the revision petition pending before the STAT, Ernakulam. Hence, it is open for the writ petitioners to seek impleadment in the revision before the Tribunal. However, the stay of operation of the impugned order granted by the **WA:280/2022** **22** Tribunal would continue to be in force. 34. In view of the above, the direction to convene timing conference and consequential directions contained in paragraph (9) of the impugned judgment are vacated. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam, is directed to consider MVARP No.5/2022 pending before it, as expeditiously as possible, after affording the appellant and respondent Nos.1 to 7/writ petitioners an opportunity of hearing. Writ appeal is partly allowed. Sd/- **S. MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE** Sd/- **SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE** Krj **WA:280/2022** **23** ## **APPENDIX** ## ' - APPELLANT S ANNEXURES: - A1:- COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 11.02.2022 IN W.P.(C) NO.4589 OF 2022. ## ' - RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO C.J.