The petitioner is aggrieved with Exhibit P3 order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam [for brevity “the Tribunal”], pursuant to which Exhibit P4 was passed. The contention of the petitioners is that they were objectors before the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority when timings were sought to be settled in favour of the 2nd respondent. The timings were settled in favour of the 2nd respondent in Exhibit P2, which was challenged before the Tribunal, by the 2nd respondent himself and two other operators. The Tribunal by Exhibit P3 allowed all the revisions, set aside the impugned order therein and directed the Secretary, RTA to re-settle the timings of the service of the 2nd respondent. The petitioners are aggrieved by Exhibit P3 and Exhibit P8 consequential order. 2. The sole contention of the petitioners is that, the challenge made to Exhibit P2 could not have been made without impleading at least one person out of the several objectors before WP(C).No.19064 of 2010 - 2 -
the authority. The petitioners also rely on Exhibit P5 judgment of this Court to advance the above proposition.
3. Definitely, without impleading any of the objectors the Tribunal ought not to have set aside a settled timings. However, in the present case it is to be noticed that three revisions were filed against the settlement of timings granted at Exhibit P2. Though the petitioners submit that the three revisions were filed by respondents 2 to 4 in collusion with each other, this Court cannot assume that. There were two persons who had objected to the timings settled at Exhibit P2, who were heard before Exhibit P3 was passed. In such circumstance, this Court is not inclined to interfere with Exhibit P3 and the consequential order Exhibit P4; and the binding precedent in Exhibit P5 would not be applicable on the facts stated above.
The writ petition, hence, would stand dismissed. No costs.
vku/-
Sd/- K.Vinod Chandran Judge ( true copy )