The petitioner is aggrieved with the order of STAT at Ext.P8, obtained by the 3rd respondent. Though service was effected on the 3rd respondent, the 3rd respondent has chosen to remain ex-parte. The short facts are that the petitioner is a rival operator of the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent had applied for variation, which variation included an extension as also curtailment in the route. The variation application itself was rejected by Ext.P1 since, the RTA found that the curtailment would adversely affect the existing travelling public. The 3rd respondent filed an appeal in which there was a remand order. On remand, the 3rd respondent had filed a modified proposal, which is evidenced at Ext.P3, which document has been produced by the petitioner being a reply to a query under the Right to Information Act. In the modified proposal, the 3rd respondent gave up the prayer for curtailment and prayed only for the extension in the route. The report of the field WPC.No.2077/2013 : 2 :
officer produced at Ext.P4 also indicates the same. The RTA having considered the variation, allowed the modified application, as is indicated in Ext.P5. The Secretary, RTA had settled the timings as per Ext.P6.
2. The 3rd respondent, then approached the appellate tribunal, with a revision, challenging Ext.P6 timings settled on him. The contention in Ext.P7 was that the Secretary while considering the timings had not considered the curtailment and had merely allowed the variation. The Tribunal, going by the contentions raised by the 3rd respondent, allowed the revision by setting aside the timings itself and directed the Secretary to consider the same fresh.
3. The petitioner is before this Court challenging Ext.P8 order of the Tribunal. Definitely, deceit was employed by the 3rd respondent in approaching the Tribunal with a prayer for settlement of timings on the curtailment, while the 3rd respondent himself had submitted a modified proposal before the RTA. It is also clear that it was the modification application, that was sanctioned when the variation was granted by the RTA. In such circumstance, Ext.P8 is set aside WPC.No.2077/2013 : 3 :
and the 3rd respondent is imposed with exemplary cost of Rs.25,000/-, to be paid to the Kerala Mediation and Reconciliation Centre which the Centre shall be entitled to recover from the 3rd respondent resorting to the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act.
Registry shall send a copy of this judgment to the Director, Kerala Mediation and Reconciliation Centre, Ernakulam.
Writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge