The High Court of Kerala has reaffirmed that administrative bodies must afford a meaningful opportunity to be heard before finalizing operational timings for stage carriage services. This judgment reinforces the foundational principle of natural justice in regulatory decision-making, with direct implications for transport operators, state authorities, and public service litigants.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, a stage carriage permit holder operating under permit KL-57-9542, challenged the procedural irregularities in the revision process conducted by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The tribunal had directed the Regional Transport Authority (RTA) to reconsider the timings for a bus route between Palakkad Town Bus Stand and NSS Engineering College, operated by the second respondent. The petitioner, who operates a competing service, had submitted a formal objection (Exhibit P6) to the proposed timings but was not given due consideration before the tribunal’s order.
Procedural History
- March 2022: RTA issued an order (Exhibit P2) regulating service timings on the contested route.
- May 2025: State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam, in MVARP No.93 of 2025, set aside the RTA’s order and directed reconsideration (Exhibit P3).
- January 2026: RTA issued a notice (Exhibit P5) for a timing conference scheduled on 28.01.2026 to reassess the route timings.
- 22 January 2026: Petitioner filed written objection (Exhibit P6) with the RTA, seeking inclusion of his concerns in the reconsideration process.
- 27 January 2026: Writ petition filed before the High Court of Kerala, alleging violation of natural justice.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought: (i) quashing of the appellate tribunal’s order (Exhibit P3) as procedurally flawed; (ii) a mandamus directing the RTA to consider his objection (Exhibit P6) before finalizing timings; and (iii) waiver of translation requirements for vernacular documents.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an administrative authority, upon being directed to reconsider service timings, is legally obligated to consider all objections submitted by affected parties before reaching a final determination, even if those objections were filed after the initial order but before the rehearing.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on the doctrine of audi alteram partem and cited State of U.P. v. Mohammad Javed to argue that the appellate tribunal’s direction for reconsideration triggered a fresh opportunity for all stakeholders to be heard. He contended that his objection (Exhibit P6), filed before the scheduled timing conference, was deliberately ignored, rendering the process arbitrary and violative of natural justice. He further emphasized that the tribunal’s order, while directing reconsideration, did not specify that only certain parties could participate.
For the Respondent
The respondents argued that the appellate tribunal’s order was procedural in nature and did not require re-adjudication of all prior submissions. They claimed that the petitioner’s objection was belated and that the RTA was merely following the tribunal’s directive to review the matter, not to conduct a de novo hearing. They also contended that the petitioner had ample opportunity to raise objections during the initial proceedings and that his current petition was an abuse of process.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the tribunal’s direction under MVARP No.93 of 2025 and found that the phrase "reconsideration" inherently implies a fresh evaluation of all relevant inputs. The Court held that natural justice is not a formality but a substantive requirement in quasi-judicial proceedings affecting livelihoods and public transport access. The tribunal’s order did not limit participation to specific parties, and therefore, the RTA was duty-bound to consider all submissions received prior to the timing conference.
"The direction to reconsider cannot be construed as a mere technical exercise; it is a mandate to afford a fair hearing to all affected persons, including those who have raised objections within the prescribed timeframe."
The Court rejected the respondents’ argument that the objection was "belated," noting that it was filed before the scheduled conference and within the procedural window established by the RTA’s own notice (Exhibit P5). The Court further held that the tribunal’s order, by setting aside the prior decision, effectively reset the procedural clock, making the petitioner’s objection timely and relevant.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court held that natural justice requires the RTA to consider all objections submitted prior to the timing conference, including Exhibit P6. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the RTA to duly consider the petitioner’s objection before finalizing the timings.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Procedural Compliance Is Non-Negotiable
- Practitioners must insist on written records of all objections submitted before administrative hearings.
- Authorities cannot selectively ignore submissions merely because they were filed after an initial order but before a rehearing.
- Any direction to "reconsider" by a higher tribunal triggers an obligation to afford a full hearing to all affected parties.
Objections Filed Before Rehearing Are Timely
- A party’s objection is not "late" if submitted before the date of the scheduled reconsideration hearing, even if filed after the original decision.
- Administrative bodies must publish clear timelines for submissions when initiating reconsideration proceedings.
- Failure to consider such objections renders the final order vulnerable to judicial review under Article 14 and Article 21.
Right to Hearing Trumps Technicality
- Courts will not uphold administrative decisions that exclude stakeholders on procedural technicalities when substantive rights are at stake.
- The burden lies on the authority to prove that a party was given a fair opportunity, not on the party to prove they were denied one.
- This principle applies equally to transport, licensing, taxation, and municipal regulatory proceedings.
