Hasker vs Ibrahim

Shoba Annamma Eapen, J.

These intra court appeals are filed challenging judgment dated 15.07.2022 in WP(C) No.22962 of 2022 rendered by the learned Single Judge.

WA No.1024 of 2022 is filed by the third respondent in WP(C) No.22962 of 2022 and WA No.486 of 2023 is filed by the writ petitioner. For convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the writ petition.

The petitioner and the third respondent are stage carriage operators conducting stage carriage service on the strength of regular permits granted by the Regional Transport Authority (RTA), Malappuram, on intra-regional routes falling within the revenue district of Malappuram. The petitioner is conducting stage carriage service on the route, Akampadam-Chalikkal, and the third respondent is operating on the route, Chalikkal-Manjeri. The third respondent submitted an application before the RTA for variation of the condition of the permit issued to him. The variation proposal involved curtailment of two existing trips. At the time of consideration of the said application, the petitioner's predecessor in interest filed Ext.P2 objection to the variation of the permit proposed by the third respondent. After taking into consideration the objections of the petitioner's predecessor in interest as also the KSRTC, the RTA rejected the application of the third respondent as per Ext.P3 order. Challenging Ext.P3 order, the third respondent filed appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (STAT). After hearing the third respondent, the RTA and the KSRTC, Ext.P3 order was set aside vide Ext.P4 judgment by the STAT and the RTA was directed to reconsider the application for variation. Thereafter, the third respondent filed WP(C) No.10012 of 2021 and this Court, vide Ext.P5 judgment, directed the RTA to pass orders on the application submitted by the third respondent for variation of permit. In WP(C) No.10012 of 2021, none of the objectors were made a party. On the basis of Ext.P5 judgment, the RTA allowed the application for variation filed by the third respondent subject to settlement of timings by taking note of the representation submitted by the permit holder. Subsequently, as per Ext.P7 order, the RTA settled timings in respect of stage carriage bearing No.KL-58-C-6537 belonging to the third respondent. Aggrieved by Exts.P6 and P7 passed by the RTA, the petitioner approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.22962 of 2022 and as per the impugned judgment, this Court set aside Ext.P7 order and remitted the matter to the RTA for reconsideration. It is aggrieved by this, WA No.1024 of 2022 was filed by the third respondent seeking to set aside the impugned judgment. WA No.486 of 2023 was filed by the writ petitioner, on the ground that the learned Single Judge quashed Ext.P7 and remitted back to the RTA for reconsideration of the settlement of timings, without setting aside Ext.P6 proceedings, by which the application for variation of permit was allowed.

Heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, learned counsel for the third respondent, learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for KSRTC.

Ext.P3 order passed by the RTA rejecting the application for variation was taken by the third respondent in appeal before the STAT. As per Ext.P4 judgment, the STAT set aside Ext.P3 order passed by the RTA and directed the RTA to reconsider the application of the third respondent. It is to be noted that while passing Ext.P3 order, the petitioner's predecessor in interest, who was an objector, was heard and it was thus, the RTA had rejected the application of the third respondent for variation of permit. However, in the appeal filed before the STAT, the predecessor in interest of the writ petitioner was not made a party to the proceedings, who was an objector to the application for variation of permit. Thereafter, two writ petitions were filed by the third respondent before this Court, wherein the petitioner's predecessor in interest, who is alleged to be an affected person in the route operated by the third respondent, was not made a party at all. Ext.P7 proceedings of the RTA reveals that a timing conference was convened on 17.06.2022 and it was on the same day, Ext.P7 proceedings was passed. The learned counsel for the third respondent submitted that the petitioner's predecessor in interest had concurred with Ext.P6 proceedings and did not choose to file an appeal and as decided by this Court in Ratheesh v. Regional Transport Authority [2015(1) KLT 248], the right under proviso to Rule 212 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, confines to challenge the variation of timings and it cannot be read as a right to the challenge the very grant of permit.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the timing conference stated to have been conducted on 17.06.2022, as could be seen from Ext.P7 proceedings, was never notified by the RTA. It is an admitted fact that the Ext.P1 permit was originally issued to one Abdul Salam and it was transferred to the petitioner herein only with effect from 05.07.2022. The petitioner's predecessor in interest did not file any appeal against Ext.P6 proceedings. But, if the petitioner is having any grievance with regard to Ext.P6, his remedy is to file an appeal before the STAT. The petitioner, admittedly, is sharing a common route of 30 km from Nilambur-Chalikkal with the 3rd respondent. Ext.P7 order though reflects that timing conference was held on 17.06.2022, it was found to have been passed in a haste. At the time of passing Ext.P7 order, the petitioner's predecessor was the owner of the stage carriage bearing registration No.KL 10-Y-5670. The permit was transferred to the name of the petitioner only on 05.07.2022. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the new timings granted to the third respondent. The learned Single Judge rightly found that the matter requires reconsideration, set aside Ext.P7 order and directed the RTA to reconsider the settlement of timings.

On a consideration of the entire facts in this case, we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the learned Single Judge in setting aside Ext.P7 order. However, we make it clear that the petitioner, if aggrieved by Ext.P6 proceedings, shall approach the STAT by way of appeal under Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in accordance with law.

On the basis of the findings as above, we are inclined to pass the following orders;

a) WA No.486 of 2023 is disposed of, directing the petitioner to approach the STAT by way of appeal against Ext.P6 proceedings of the RTA dated 02.10.2021 in accordance with law, if so advised.

b) WA No.1024 of 2022 is dismissed.

c) It is made clear that the RTA shall reconsider the settlement of timings granted to stage carriage bearing No.KL-58-C-6537 and pass orders with notice to the petitioner and all affected parties, in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

d) Till a decision as above is taken by the RTA, status quo as on today shall be maintained.