Kerala High Court
Bibin T Alappat vs The Regional Transport Authority on 28 October, 2025
Author: Anil K. Narendran
Bench: Anil K. Narendran
W.A.No.2554 of 2025 1 2025:KER:81371
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 6TH KARTHIKA, 1947
WA NO. 2554 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.10.2025 IN W.P.(C)NO.27765 OF
2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
BIBIN T ALAPPAT, AGED 42 YEARS
S/O A.L.THOMAS, ALAPPAT HOUSE,
PURANATTUKARA P.O.,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680551
BY ADV SHRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
AYYANTHOLE,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
2 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
3 VIDYASAGAR, S/O K.K.MENON, AGED 84 YEARS,
GREEN COTTAGE, AYYANTHOLE,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT. MARY BEENA JOSEPH, SR. GP
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.10.2025,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.2554 of 2025 2 2025:KER:81371
JUDGMENT
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The appellant filed W.P.(C)No.27765 of 2025, invoking the
writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P4 judgment
dated 28.04.2025 of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in
M.V.A.A.No.158 of 2023, an appeal filed by the 3 rd respondent
herein, invoking the provisions under Section 89 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging Ext.P2 order dated 07.03.2023 of
the 1st respondent Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur. The
petitioner has also sought for a declaration that the reason stated
by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in Ext.P4 judgment that
Ext.P2 order was passed by the 1st respondent Regional Transport
Authority without hearing the 3rd respondent is factually incorrect,
and thereby the said order of remand is illegal.
2. On receipt of notice in the writ petition, the 3 rd
respondent filed a counter affidavit dated 16.08.2025, opposing
the reliefs sought for. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned
judgment dated 10.10.2025, disposed of W.P.(C)No.27765 of
2025. Paragraphs 2 to 5 and also the last paragraph of that
W.A.No.2554 of 2025 3 2025:KER:81371
judgment read thus;
"2. The tribunal found that the 3rd respondent did not get an
opportunity of hearing and therefore, directed a
reconsideration of the application, on merits by judgment
dated 28th April, 2025. The petitioner, not a party to the
tribunal, contends that the assertion of the 3rd respondent
that he was not heard is factually incorrect.
3. Be that as it may, the Tribunal has only directed a
reconsideration of the application preferred by the 3rd
respondent.
4. Under such circumstances, the petitioner cannot be said
to be aggrieved by any direction in Ext.P4. It will be open to
the petitioner to raise his objections, if any, when the 1 st
respondent reconsiders, pursuant to the directions in
M.V.A.A No.158 of 2023 of the State Transport Appellate
Tribunal, Ernakulam. If the petitioner raises any objections,
the same shall also be considered by the 1st respondent
while taking a decision, as directed by the Tribunal.
5. Taking note of the fact that the directions were issued by
the tribunal as early as 28.04.2025, there will be a direction
to the 1st respondent to take a decision, as directed by the
tribunal, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy
of the judgment.
The writ petition is disposed of as above."
3. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 10.10.2025
of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.27765 of 2025, the
appellant-petitioner is before this Court in this writ appeal,
invoking the provisions under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court
W.A.No.2554 of 2025 4 2025:KER:81371
Act, 1958.
4. Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the
appellant-petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader for
respondents 1 and 2 and also the learned counsel for the 3 rd
respondent.
5. The issue that requires consideration in this writ appeal
is as to whether the impugned judgment dated 10.10.2025 of the
learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.27765 of 2025, can be
sustained in law.
6. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel
for the appellant-petitioner and the learned Senior Government
Pleader would point out the first paragraph of Ext.P2 decision
dated 07.03.2023 of the 1st respondent Regional Transport
Authority, wherein it is stated that the counsel representing the
applicant and objectors were heard. The learned counsel for the
appellant-petitioner would point out paragraph 5 of the statement
of facts in Ext.P3 memorandum of appeal in M.V.A.A.No.158 of
2023, wherein the 3rd respondent (appellant therein) had admitted
that he had appeared before the Regional Transport Authority
through counsel and submitted the circumstances which lead to
the pendency of the first application for renewal and the reason
W.A.No.2554 of 2025 5 2025:KER:81371
for non operation of the vehicle. Paragraph 5 of the memorandum
of appeal reads thus;
"5. Now, the applications for renewal submitted by the
appellant for the period from 23.01.2018, which was kept
pending and for the period from 23.01.2023 was boarded
for consideration before the 1st respondent in the meeting
held on 07.03.2023. The appellant had appeared through
counsel and had submitted the circumstances which lead to
the pendency of the 1st application for renewal and the
reasons for non-operation of the vehicle. It was also pointed
out that no action was initiated by the 1st respondent till
date, on account of non-operation, since no prejudice was
caused to the travelling public." (underline supplied)
7. The reasoning of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal
in paragraph 6 of Ext.P4 judgment dated 28.04.2025 in
M.V.A.A.No.158 of 2023 for remanding the matter to the 1 st
respondent Regional Transport Authority reads thus;
"6. The case of the appellant is that, without hearing him
the respondent has passed the impugned order. The
appellant is a very old man. It is the rule that adequate
notice of meetings shall be given for the information of the
parties. Here no notice has been issued to the appellant
regarding the meeting and the impugned order has been
passed in his absence. This is a fit case in which
reconsideration is highly necessary." (underline supplied)
8. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent made an
attempt to justify the order of remand in Ext.P4 judgment dated
W.A.No.2554 of 2025 6 2025:KER:81371
28.04.2025 of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in
M.V.A.A.No.158 of 2023, by raising contentions on the illegality in
Ext.P2 order dated 07.03.2023 of the 1st respondent Regional
Transport Authority. On a query made by this Court, the learned
counsel would submit that the reasoning of the Tribunal in Ext.P4
judgment that Ext.P2 order of the Regional Transport Authority is
one passed without hearing the 3rd respondent (appellant therein)
is without any factual foundation.
9. Having considered the pleadings and materials on
record and also the submissions made at the Bar, we find that the
reasoning of the Tribunal in paragraph 6 of Ext.P4 judgment dated
28.04.2025 in M.V.A.A.No.158 of 2023 for setting aside Ext.P2
order dated 07.03.2023 and remanding the matter to the 1st
respondent Regional Transport Authority is absolutely without any
factual foundation. When the appellant in M.V.A.A.No.158 of 2023
has no such case in Ext.P3 memorandum of appeal, the reasoning
of the Tribunal in paragraph 6 of Ext.P4 judgment can only be
termed as perverse and patently illegal, which warrants
interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
10. In the result, this writ appeal is disposed of by setting
W.A.No.2554 of 2025 7 2025:KER:81371
aside the judgment dated 10.10.2025 of the learned Single Judge
in W.P.(C)No.27765 of 2025 and the said writ petition is disposed
of by setting aside Ext.P4 judgment dated 28.04.2025 of the State
Transport Appellate Tribunal in M.V.A.A.No.158 of 2023 and by
directing the Tribunal to reconsider the said appeal and pass
appropriate orders thereon, with notice to both sides, as
expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month
from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
The legal and factual contentions raised by the appellant and
the 3rd respondent touching the merits of the matter in
M.V.A.A.No.158 of 2023 are left open to be raised before the
Tribunal, at appropriate stage. It would be open to the appellant-
petitioner to get himself impleaded in M.V.A.A.No.158 of 2023 by
filing an application for impleadment.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
MSA
