IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 30560 of 2009(L)
1. SAJU DANEIL, AGED 33 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT
... Respondent
2. P.M.KUNJUMON, PAKKOLIL HOUSE,
3. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
For Petitioner :SRI.P.DEEPAK
For Respondent :SRI.I.DINESH MENON
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :23/12/2009
O R D E R
S.SIRI JAGAN, J.
==================
W.P.(C).No. 30560 of 2009
==================
Dated this the 23rd day of December, 2009
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is a stage carriage operator. The 2nd respondent is
another stage carriage operator. In respect of the 2nd respondent’s
stage carriage service, Ext.P1 timings were alloted to him. Ext.P1
timings were issued after hearing the petitioner and the KSRTC also. It
appears that the KSRTC objected to Ext.P1 timings. Thereupon, the 1st
respondent passed Ext.P3 order revising the timings of the 2nd
respondent’s stage carriage service. The petitioner is challenging
Ext.P3 on the ground that the 1st respondent has no power to review
his own decision on timings, unless there is change of circumstances
warranting revision of timings as contemplated by the Motor Vehicles
Act. According to the petitioner, Ext.P1 timings were fixed on 8.9.2009
and Ext.P3 order has been passed barely one-and-a-half months’
thereafter on 20.10.2009. Therefore, if at all the KSRTC had objection
to Ext.P1, the remedy of the KSRTC was to file a revision before the
State Transport Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, the petitioner submits
that Ext.P3 is liable to be quashed.
2. The 2nd respondent has filed counter affidavit stating that it
is not at his instance that Ext.P3 order was passed. In fact, the 2nd
respondent was also contemplating filing a revision against Ext.P1
2
when notice regarding timing conference was received within days
after passing Ext.P1 order. Therefore, he had no chance to file revision
against Ext.P1 order also. Ext.P1 order was changed by Ext.P3.
According to the 2nd respondent, he cannot be put to prejudice because
of the action of the Secretary, RTA and the KSRTC, but he submits that
he may be given an opportunity to challenge Ext.P1 by filing a revision
notwithstanding the fact that the period of limitation for filing the
revision is over.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
learned Government Pleader, the learned counsel for the 2nd
respondent and the learned standing counsel for the KSRTC.
4. No doubt, the 1st respondent ought not to have acted on
the basis of the objections by the KSRTC to review Ext.P1. He had no
such powers, which is settled law. The 1st respondent ought to have
relegated the KSRTC to their remedy by way of revision before the
Tribunal. Therefore, Ext.P3 is liable to be quashed. But because of the
action of respondents 1 and 3, the 2nd respondent has been put to
prejudice in so far as he was prevented from challenging Ext.P1 in a
revision appropriately. Therefore, although Ext.P3 order is wrong, I am
of opinion that the 2nd respondent should be given an opportunity to
file revision against Ext.P1, notwithstanding the fact that the period of
limitation for filing such revision is over because of passing of Ext.P3
3
order. Therefore, I am of opinion that for the purpose of computing
limitation for challenging Ext.P1 the 2nd respondent is entitled to have
the period from the date of receipt of Ext.P2 notice till the date of this
judgment excluded. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with
the following directions:
Ext.P3 order is quashed. If the 2nd respondent files a revision
against Ext.P1 order before the Tribunal, for the purpose of computing
limitation, the Tribunal shall exclude the period from 12.10.2009 till
today and consider the revision accordingly.
Sd/-
sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
///True copy///
P.A. to Judge