Point of Law: Notice - Condonation of delay - Rule 19 of STAT Rules has fixed time limit for disposal of appeal or revision - It provides that every appeal or revision shall ordinarily be heard and disposed of finally within four months from date of filing.

JUDGMENT :

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.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in every proceedings, if the respondent remains absent, after service of notice in an application for condonation of delay, fresh notice is liable to be ordered by the court to the respondent to appear in appeal/revision. Applying the same analogy, learned counsel contended that, notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner herein has been served with notice in the delay condonation application, he ought to have been served with notice in revision/appeal since the respondent has the freedom to remain absent, if he did not have any objection regarding the grounds set up in the application for condonation of delay. Still, that does not imply that the respondent should not be issued a fresh notice in the further proceeding and cannot be considered as a ground for dispensing notice.

5. Vehemently opposing the application, learned counsel for the third respondent contended that STAT Rules do not contemplate successive notices on the respondent at every stage. Rules, 11, 13, and Rule 24 of the Kerala State Transport Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1988 were strongly relied on by the learned counsel for the third respondent. Rule 11 relates to the procedure for registration of appeal or revision petition. Rule provides that if an appeal or revision has been filed, the Tribunal shall fix a date for hearing and issue notice in Form D to the parties by registered post with acknowledgment due, in the address furnished in the revision or appeal. A copy of the appeal memorandum or revision petition or miscellaneous petition as the case may be, and the affidavit, if any, shall also be furnished to the respondent or respondents. Sub Rule (3) provides that respondent shall file a counter