IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 13TH DECEMBER 2011 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 4112 of 2010(L) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- PATHUKUTTY,W/O.LATE KHADER, MACHINGALTHODI HOUSE,AMBALAVATTOM,PANAMANNA, OTTAPALAM. BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD. 2. THE SECRETARY,REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,PALAKKAD. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. G.GOPAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.4112/2010 L APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF COMMON JUDGMENT IN MVAA NO.633 AND 634 OF 2007 DTD. 25/07/2008. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.4112 of 2010 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the wife of late M.T.Khader, who was operating a stage carriage on the route Ottappalam - Ottappalam. She has filed this writ petition for an order directing the Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad to comply with Ext.P1 judgment delivered by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in M.V.A.A.Nos.633 and 634 of 2007, whereby the Appellate Tribunal directed transfer of the permit to the name of the petitioner and also its renewal. 2. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit wherein, in paragraph 8, it is stated that Ext.P1 was challenged in W.P.(C) No.24660 of 2008, that the said writ petition was disposed of by judgment delivered on 9.1.2009 setting aside Ext.P1 and directing the Regional Transport Authority to reconsider the application filed by the petitioner for transfer of the permit and its renewal. In such circumstances, as Ext.P1 is no longer in force, the relief prayed for in this writ petition cannot be granted. The W.P(C).No.4112 of 2010 -:2:- learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner was a party to W.P.(C)No.24660 of 2008, she did not enter appearance and contest the writ petition, but she has now filed a review petition seeking a review of the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C)No.24660 of 2008. The learned counsel submitted that in such circumstances this writ petition may be closed as infructuous reserving liberty with the petitioner to prosecute the review petition filed by her seeking review of the judgment of this Court in W.P(C)No.24660 of 2008. In the light of the fact that Ext.P1 order has been set aside by this Court in W.P(C)No.24660 of 2008, I am of the opinion that the relief prayed for herein cannot be granted. This writ petition is accordingly closed. However, it will be open to the petitioner to prosecute the review petition filed by her seeking a review of the judgment of this Court in W.P(C)No.24660 of 2008. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. ahg. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P(C).No.4112 of 2010 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 13th December, 2011