MURALEEDHARAN PILLAI Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner and the 3rd respondent are two stage carriage operators who ply their vehicles in the same route on the strength of valid permits. While so, the petitioner herein filed an application for revision of his timings, which was allowed by the Secretary, RTA, Kollam. Challenging that order, revision was filed by the third respondent herein as MVARP No.52/2018. Since there was delay in filing the above revision, MP No.349/2018 was filed to condone the delay, that had occurred in filing MVARP No.52/2018. Notice was issued to the petitioner herein who was arrayed as the third respondent in the revision. Though he received notice in MP No.349/2018 to appear on 29/9/2018, he remained absent. On that day, in the absence of the petitioner, delay was condoned, revision was heard and the case was taken for orders. Later, the revision was disposed of by order dated 12/10/2018.

(2.) The above order is assailed by the petitioner in this writ petition, inter alia, on the ground that the impugned order was not legally sustainable, in so far as the order in the revision petition was passed by the learned Tribunal without notice to the petitioner. The short point, on which the argument was advanced by both sides was whether after allowing the delay condonation application, the petitioner herein was entitled to fresh notice in MVARP No.52/2018.

(3.) There is no dispute that the notice was served on the petitioner herein in MP No.349/2018. There is also no dispute that, the petitioner remained absent on the date of posting of M.P.No.349/2018 and on the same day, the revision was heard and taken for orders. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, the petitioner has received notice only in MP No.349/2018, notice received by him in that, is not produced to show that notice was only to appear in the delay con-donation application and not in the revision. Petitioner had also not asserted that he was not served with a composite notice, both in the delay condonation application as well as in the revision. Had a composite notice been issued to the respondent,there was absolutely no legal obligation on the Tribunal to issue fresh notice after service of notice in the delay condonation application.