M C RATHEESH Vs. SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A three Judge Bench has made the reference by order dated 16.10.2014 doubting correctness of an earlier Full Bench judgment of this Court Binu Chacko v. R.T.A., Pathanamthitta, 2006 2 KerLT 172 . In the reference order the Full Bench has observed that in Binu Chacko's case , the Full Bench has dilated regarding the scope of the phrase 'person aggrieved'. The matter was placed before the Full Bench by reference order dated 30.3.2011 by a Division Bench. The learned Division Bench, after noticing the ratio of the Full Bench judgment in Binu Chacko's case and a Division Bench judgment in Girija Devi v. K.T.Mathew,1991 1 KerLT 353 , which was relied on in Binu Chakco's case , in paragraphs 6 to 10, has opined as follows:

(2.) For answering the issues, which have arisen by reference order it is necessary to note the facts giving rise to W.A.No.412 of 2011. W.A.No.412 of 2011 is being treated as leading case and noticing the facts of the above writ appeal shall be sufficient for deciding all the Writ Appeals.

(3.) W.A.No.412 of 2011 has been field against the judgment dated 3.3.2011 passed in W.P(C).No.5586 of 2011. The first respondent Mr.M.R.Joy was the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner was granted regular permit vide proceeding dated 20.12.2010 of the Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam. The decision, however, was subject to settlement of timing. The respondents took the stand that Exhibit P3 permit granted to the writ petitioner can be endorsed only after convening a timing conference and only after settling the timing. The Writ Petition was filed seeking a direction to issue regular permit with Exhibit P2 timings proposed by the writ petitioner reserving the right of the respondent to settle/revise the timings after issue of permit. The Writ Petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge directing the respondent to issue permit in implementation of Exhibit P3 order with a set of provisional timings. The learned Single Judge has further observed that if, after the permit is issued and the writ petitioner commences service, any other person objects to the timings fixed, it will be open to the respondent to convene a timing conference and settle the timings with notice to the petitioner and other operators. Against the aforesaid judgment, Writ Appeal has been filed by the appellants, who are the existing operators. The appellants' case is that they have preferred their objection for settlement of proposed timings before issue of permit to the first respondent. Hence, feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, they filed the appeal with the leave of the Court. When the appeal was being heard by the Division Bench, the Division Bench noticed the Full Bench judgment in Binu Chacko's case and made observation that certain observations made by the Full Bench that existing operator can raise objection regarding settlement of timings are inconsistent with the other principle laid down by the Full Bench that existing operator has no right to object to the grant of new permits. The Division Bench made a reference to Full Bench, which, in turn, has referred the matter vide its order dated 16.10.2014 for consideration by a Larger Bench.