IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 3234 of 2010(D)
1. P.S. AROMAL,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
... Respondent
2. THE SECRETARY,
3. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
For Petitioner :SRI.O.D.SIVADAS
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :18/02/2010
O R D E R
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J
...........................................
WP(C).NO.3234 OF 2010
............................................
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is a Stage Carriage operator conducting service on
the route Madathara-Odanavattam thereby extending his route from
Valakam to Odanavattam as per a regular permit valid till 9.12.2012.
The petitioner applied for variation of condition of his permit and the
RTA considered the matter and granted a variation with a condition
that the proposed trip from Madathara at 5.45 pm shall be upto
Valakam. According to the petitioner, the above condition was
imposed without any notice and without hearing him. It is also
contended that the said variation was not one that was sought by him.
Therefore, the petitioner challenged the proceedings of the second
respondent before the third respondent. The third respondent also
confirmed the order of the second respondent. Therefore, the petitioner
has filed this writ petition challenging the said orders.
2. The Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that the
RTA is clothed with sufficient powers to impose a condition as
Wpc 3234/2010 2
stipulated in the present order under Section 72 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988. It is also submitted that there were objections from the
members of the travelling public and that it was in deference to the said
objections that the condition was imposed. However, it is not in dispute
that the petitioner was not heard on the question as to whether such a
condition was to be imposed while granting variation of his permit as
sought for by him. Since the condition was imposed on the petitioner
without hearing him, I feel that the petitioner is entitled to an
opportunity of being heard.
3. In the above circumstances, it is necessary that the second
respondent is directed to consider the matter afresh. Ext.P3 order of the
second respondent to the extent it imposes a condition on the petitioner
that was not sought for by him is set aside and the authority is directed
to consider the matter afresh untrammelled by the observations in
Ext.P4 order of the STAT after affording an opportunity of being heard
to the petitioner and other objectors. Such orders shall be passed as
expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE
lgk