Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.

Respondent No.7 to the writ petition is the appellant. He filed this writ appeal challenging the judgment dated 16.3.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)1009/2017. Without going into the several facts, suffice it to say that the learned Single Judge found it to be virtually an admitted position that upon remand by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, the Regional Transport Authority was to consider the cases of the writ petitioner, respondent No.4 and the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC). In fact notices were issued by the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority for such a hearing, and it was the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority who heard the matter but orders were passed by the Regional Transport Authority. Learned Single Judge found that this was a procedure unknown to law and in violation of the principles of natural justice. Thus, he set aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority and remanded the same to Regional Transport Authority for fresh hearing in accordance with law.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of the appeal submits that a comparison of Section 86 of the Moto